qui_get_orphan_scan_run

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description consistently shows a GET request. It adds the specific endpoint structure but nothing else about behavior, such as error responses, authentication requirements, or the meaning of a response. The annotation lowers the bar, but the description still adds minimal context beyond it.

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 states the endpoint and call conventions without wasted words. It is structured clearly and is easy to parse.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value details are covered. The description provides the endpoint and argument-passing mechanics, but it doesn't clarify what an 'orphan scan run' is, how to obtain the instanceID/runID, or when to prefer this over sibling tools. This is adequate for a simple retrieval but lacks surrounding context.

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 provides no named parameters (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains the structural convention (path variables directly in arguments, query values in arguments.params, body in arguments.body) but does not enumerate the actual parameters (instanceID, runID) or their meanings/types. The placeholders in the URL offer some hint, but the description itself leaves too much implicit.

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 precisely names the HTTP method (GET) and the full endpoint path with path variables (/instances/{instanceID}/orphan-scan/runs/{runID}), which unambiguously identifies the operation and distinguishes it from siblings like qui_list_orphan_scan_runs. This meets the standard of specific verb+resource+scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when this tool should be used instead of alternatives. It doesn't mention that this fetches a single run while qui_list_orphan_scan_runs lists all runs, nor any prerequisite like needing a runID. The purpose must be inferred from the tool name and endpoint.

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