qui_get_scan_directory

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It mentions the HTTP method, which is consistent with read-only, but provides no additional details about error scenarios, return shape, or side effects. With annotations present, the description still fails to add meaningful context.

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?

Two tightly written sentences: the first states the endpoint, the second explains the argument-passing convention. No filler or redundancy; information is front-loaded.

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?

Even with an output schema present, the description is too thin. It does not state what a scan directory is, what the response contains, or that the directory ID must reference an existing scan directory. The tool name carries most of the semantic load, which is insufficient for an agent to correctly infer behavior in varied contexts.

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's single arguments property is completely undocumented (0% coverage), so the description's explanation of how to structure path variables, query values, and request body is valuable. However, it does not specify the actual directoryID path variable, required vs. optional parameters, or any concrete query parameters, leaving much to inference.

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 HTTP verb (GET) and resource path (/dir-scan/directories/{directoryID}), making the target resource unambiguous. However, it lacks a natural-language statement of what the endpoint returns, instead relying on the tool name and path for semantic meaning, which slightly weakens its distinctiveness from sibling tools.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like qui_list_scan_directories or qui_get_scan_directory_status. The only instruction is a generic parameter-passing rule that applies to all tools in this family, not specific usage context.

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