qui_list_scan_directories

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already marks this as a safe read operation. The description adds the HTTP method and the argument structure (path variables, query parameters, body), which is useful but does not go beyond that. It does not disclose response behavior or potential edge cases, though the output schema exists. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with no fluff, but it is packed with three clauses in a run-on style. It earns its place by explaining the argument-passing convention, though it could be broken into clearer parts.

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?

The description is inadequate for an agent to know exactly what arguments to pass or when to choose this tool. It does not state whether any parameters are required, and the generic advice about path/body may mislead. The output schema helps with return values, but the input side remains underspecified.

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 only has a generic 'arguments' object with no documented properties (0% coverage). The description gives a generic pattern for passing path, query, and body values but does not specify which parameters this endpoint supports. For a list endpoint with a path like /dir-scan/directories/, the mention of path variables is confusing and likely inapplicable.

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 the exact endpoint (GET /dir-scan/directories/) and the tool name 'list_scan_directories' clarifies the intent. It is specific to this resource but does not explicitly state that it lists all scan directories, which would better differentiate it from qui_get_scan_directory (singular).

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 alternatives such as qui_get_scan_directory or qui_list_scan_directory_runs. The description only covers invocation mechanics, not selection context.

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