qui_list_external_programs

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already conveys the read-only nature. The description adds only a generic note about argument structure, with no behavioral specifics like response format, pagination, or error handling. It does not contradict the annotation, but adds minimal value beyond it.

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. It states the endpoint and the argument-passing convention without unnecessary detail, earning its place 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?

For a simple GET list endpoint, the description is adequate but bare. It does not mention that this returns a list of external programs or clarify whether any query parameters are expected. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the lack of endpoint-specific call details limits 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 a generic 'arguments' object with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description explains that path variables, query parameters, and body can be passed within 'arguments', which adds some structure beyond the schema. However, it provides no endpoint-specific parameters for this list operation, so compensation is partial.

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 identifies the tool as calling the GET /external-programs/ endpoint, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like qui_create_external_program, qui_update_external_program, etc., by implying a read-only list operation.

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?

Usage is implied: the tool lists external programs via HTTP GET. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or mention exclusions. The context of sibling tools hints at the distinction, but the description itself provides no direct comparison.

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