qui_get_preferences

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already covers the read-only nature, and the description's explicit GET statement reinforces it. However, it adds no additional behavioral context such as authentication requirements, error handling, or response format. With annotations present, minimal extra value is provided.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the endpoint and then explains the argument passing convention. No wasted words or redundant 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?

The description is sufficient for a simple GET operation: it names the endpoint and explains argument structure. The output schema exists, so return values are covered. Minor gaps include lack of prerequisites (e.g., how to obtain instanceID) and authentication context, but these are not critical for a straightforward read tool.

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 input schema is a generic 'arguments' object with additionalProperties, providing no parameter structure. The description compensates by explaining how to pass path variables directly, query values in arguments.params, and a JSON body in arguments.body. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, though it doesn't enumerate specific path variables beyond the endpoint's instanceID.

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 explicitly states the tool calls the GET /instances/{instanceID}/preferences endpoint, identifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like qui_update_preferences by the HTTP method. This meets the 5= specific verb+resource criterion.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. Usage is implied from the GET verb and endpoint path, but there are no exclusions or explicit context about when this is appropriate versus qui_update_preferences.

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