qui_list_cross_seed_runs

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral details such as pagination, ordering, or that it returns a list of runs. It redundantly restates the HTTP method (GET), adding no new context 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 is a single concise sentence with no fluff, front-loading the key instruction. It is sufficiently brief, though the flow could be improved by stating the purpose first.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are covered, but the description lacks purpose, usage context, and parameter specifics. Given the large set of similarly named sibling tools, this description is insufficient to disambiguate the tool's role or invoke it correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives a generic mapping (path vars in arguments, query in arguments.params, body in arguments.body) but does not enumerate any concrete parameters for this endpoint, such as run ID or filters. The agent cannot determine what to pass.

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 merely instructs the agent to call a specific HTTP endpoint ('Call qui's GET /cross-seed/runs endpoint') without stating what the tool does, e.g., 'List cross-seed runs.' It does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_cross_seed_search_runs or list_cross_seed_season_pack_runs and relies on the name for meaning.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided. It does not mention when to choose this tool over other cross-seed list tools or any alternatives. The only guidance is a generic parameter-passing convention, which addresses how, not when, to use the tool.

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