qui_list_arr_instances

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's GET method aligns. The description adds the argument-passing convention (path variables, query in params, body), which is essential for invoking the tool correctly. It does not contradict annotations and provides a small but useful extra context beyond the schema and 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the endpoint and gives a clear instruction structure. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 generic to all qui API calls and lacks resource-specific context, such as what an ARR instance is or that this lists all configured instances. Since an output schema exists, return details are not needed from the description, but the tool-specific context is thin. It is minimally complete for a simple read-only operation but leaves room for uncertainty about the exact purpose.

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 single open-ended 'arguments' property with 0% description coverage. The description provides a generic structural convention for passing parameters, but doesn't identify endpoint-specific parameters or expected values. This partially compensates for the missing schema details, but the information is generic to all qui_* API tools rather than specific to this operation.

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 states 'Call qui's GET /arr/instances endpoint', which clearly identifies the HTTP verb and resource path. Although it doesn't literally say 'list ARR instances', the tool name and endpoint path make the purpose unambiguous. It is specific to ARR instances, distinguishing it from generic instance tools like qui_list_instances.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like qui_get_arr_instance or qui_list_instances. The description only explains how to call the endpoint, not the appropriate context or alternatives. Given the extensive sibling list, this is a significant gap.

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