qui_get_scan_directory_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., response format, side effects, or rate limits) beyond the mere fact that this is a GET endpoint, which adds little beyond the annotation.

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 consists of two concise sentences that immediately state the endpoint and the parameter-passing convention. There is no extraneous information, and the most important details are 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?

Given that an output schema is present and the tool is a simple status fetch, the description sufficiently covers the endpoint and argument structure. It could be slightly more explicit about the required path variable, but the URL placeholder and the explanation of 'path variables directly in arguments' make it complete enough for correct invocation.

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 zero specific fields. The description crucially explains that path variables are placed directly in 'arguments', query values in 'arguments.params', and the body in 'arguments.body', compensating for the schema's lack of detail. The specific {directoryID} is visible in the endpoint URL, providing adequate semantic information.

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 and endpoint (GET /dir-scan/directories/{directoryID}/status), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiating it from siblings like qui_get_scan_directory or qui_list_scan_directory_runs which target different resources.

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 explains how to call the endpoint but does not specify when to use it versus alternatives such as qui_list_scan_directory_runs. Usage context is implied by the name and endpoint, but no explicit guidance or exclusions are provided.

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