qui_get_orphan_scan_settings

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

The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining the argument-passing convention: path variables go directly in arguments, query values in arguments.params, and body in arguments.body. This is a behavioral trait of the generic HTTP client wrapper, and it is consistent with the GET method and readOnlyHint.

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 concise sentence that directly states the endpoint and the argument-passing rules. Every phrase is necessary, with no redundancy or superfluous information.

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?

For a straightforward GET settings endpoint with an output schema, the description provides the essential invocation details: method, path, and argument organization. It does not describe the response format, but the present output schema likely covers that. The lack of mention of authentication or extra requirements is acceptable given the readOnlyHint and simplicity of the operation.

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 is the sole source for parameter structure. It explicitly describes how to map path variables, query parameters, and body to the arguments object, and the endpoint path reveals the instanceID variable. This compensates for the schema gap, though it does not enumerate all possible query or body fields.

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 tool as a GET request to a specific endpoint for orphan scan settings. It specifies the HTTP verb, resource path, and the instanceID variable, making it distinct from sibling tools like qui_update_orphan_scan_settings or qui_trigger_orphan_scan.

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 usage is implied by the GET method and the endpoint name, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It focuses on how to pass arguments rather than when to apply them.

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