qui_get_version

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with a GET request. It does not add significant behavioral context beyond the parameter-passing convention, but nothing contradicts the annotations.

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 sentence with no superfluous words; it states the action and parameter structure efficiently.

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 the tool's simplicity, the readOnly annotation, and the presence of an output schema, this description covers the essential invocation details. It doesn't explain return values, but the output schema handles that.

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 only defines a generic 'arguments' object with no specific parameters (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining how to pass path variables, query values, and body, which is essential for correct invocation.

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 states the tool calls the GET /version endpoint, which is a specific verb and resource. The endpoint name distinguishes it from sibling tools like qui_get_latest_version and qui_get_application_info.

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 provides parameter-passing instructions but no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like qui_get_latest_version. The usage is implied by the endpoint name, but not explicitly differentiated.

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