qui_list_backup_runs

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

The annotation readOnlyHint: true already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and the argument-passing pattern (path variables directly, query in arguments.params, body in arguments.body), which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose any specific behavioral traits beyond the call structure, such as pagination or response format.

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 sentence that gets straight to the point. It is concise, front-loaded with the endpoint, and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

For a simple list operation, the description covers the HTTP call and argument layout, but it omits necessary details like whether instanceID is required, what query parameters are supported, or expected response shape. The output schema may cover return values, but the gap on request parameters reduces completeness.

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 extremely generic (an 'arguments' object with no defined properties), so the description must compensate. It mentions the path variable {instanceID} and the structure for query and body parameters, but it doesn't specify any other parameters or their meanings. This minimal enrichment is insufficient given the schema coverage of 0%.

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 identifies a specific endpoint 'GET /instances/{instanceID}/backups/runs', which clearly indicates a read operation that lists backup runs for a given instance. While it doesn't explicitly state 'list', the tool name and resource path make the purpose unambiguous. It is distinguishable from siblings like qui_delete_backup_run by the HTTP method and resource path.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply instructs to call the endpoint. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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