qui_get_log_exclusions

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a read-only operation, and the GET verb is consistent. The description adds the argument-passing convention (path variables in arguments, query in arguments.params, body in arguments.body), which is useful but not rich. No other behavioral traits like pagination, auth, or side effects are disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the endpoint and the argument-passing convention. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or unnecessary details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks usage context, relationship to sibling tools, and specific parameter details, making it minimally complete for a simple read-only endpoint but with notable gaps in usability guidance.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the generic 'arguments' object. It provides a high-level placement pattern but does not name any actual path variables, query parameters, or body fields for this endpoint, leaving the agent without concrete parameter knowledge.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the operation as calling the GET /log-exclusions endpoint, which matches the tool name and distinguishes it from the sibling qui_update_log_exclusions by HTTP method. However, it does not explain what log exclusions are or what the endpoint returns, so it's clear but not fully differentiating.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like qui_update_log_exclusions or other log-related tools. It only provides invocation instructions without context on use cases or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.