qui_get_log_settings

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds only the HTTP method and argument-passing convention, with no additional behavioral context like response characteristics or required permissions.

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?

A single sentence that is direct and free of fluff. It conveys the endpoint and parameter-passing convention efficiently.

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. The description explains the argument structure and the endpoint is simple. Missing explicit usage guidance prevents a perfect score, but overall it is reasonably complete for a read-only GET.

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?

The schema is a generic 'arguments' object with 0% coverage, so the description's note about passing path variables in arguments, query values in arguments.params, and body in arguments.body provides structural meaning. However, it does not specify which concrete parameters this endpoint expects, though the endpoint likely has none.

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 states the tool calls qui's GET /log-settings endpoint, identifying both the action (GET) and the resource (log settings). This distinguishes it from siblings like qui_update_log_settings and qui_get_log_exclusions.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as using qui_update_log_settings for changes. The only usage advice is about argument-passing mechanics, which does not help with tool selection.

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