qui_list_licenses

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already conveys that this is a read-only operation, and the description's 'GET' method is consistent with this. The description adds the parameter-passing convention (path/query/body) but does not disclose additional behavior such as authentication requirements, response structure, or potential side effects. Since annotations cover the core safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded with the action ('Call'), and contains no filler. It is concise, but its brevity limits the amount of useful information conveyed. It earns a high score for structure but not a 5 due to the lack of explicit purpose and parameter details.

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 generic schema and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to specify what path variables or query parameters are relevant for this endpoint (e.g., pagination, filters), and the mention of 'path variables' may be misleading for a fixed path like /license/licenses. The description does not provide enough context for an agent to correctly construct the request beyond the generic argument structure.

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 generic with no specific parameters defined (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains that path variables go in 'arguments', query values in 'arguments.params', and body in 'arguments.body', but it does not list which path variables, query parameters, or body fields this specific endpoint accepts. The guidance is generic and does not provide tool-specific parameter semantics.

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 says 'Call qui's GET /license/licenses endpoint' which identifies the resource and HTTP method but does not explicitly state that the tool lists licenses. The purpose is implied from the tool name and endpoint, but the description itself lacks a clear action verb like 'list' or 'retrieve'. It distinguishes from siblings by naming the endpoint, but not as strongly as a purpose statement would.

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 alternative license-related tools (e.g., qui_get_licensed_status, qui_activate_license). The description only explains how to call the endpoint, not the conditions under which this tool should be selected.

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