qui_list_instances

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'GET' statement is redundant with that annotation. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination, filtering options, or whether authentication is required. It merely reiterates the HTTP method and argument structure, providing little beyond the structured data.

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 front-loads the key action ('Call qui's GET /instances/ endpoint') and then concisely explains the argument-passing rules. There is no redundancy or filler, making it highly efficient.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation mechanics. However, it omits any specific query parameters or path variables that might be relevant (e.g., filters or pagination), and it doesn't explicitly state that no arguments are needed for a basic list call. The description is adequate but leaves some uncertainty for the agent.

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 free-form 'arguments' object with 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by defining the convention: path variables go directly in 'arguments', query values in 'arguments.params', and the request body in 'arguments.body'. This gives the agent actionable guidance for invoking the endpoint, though it doesn't list which parameters are valid for this specific list 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 /instances/ endpoint', which clearly identifies the resource and HTTP method. The name 'qui_list_instances' also reinforces the purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly say 'List instances' or describe the return value, relying on the endpoint and name to imply the action.

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 does not mention that it returns all instances, nor does it reference any sibling tools like 'qui_create_instance' or 'qui_list_arr_instances'. The only usage-related info is the generic argument-passing convention, which applies across all tools.

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