qui_list_scan_directory_files

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds only the endpoint and generic parameter-passing rules, not behavioral context like what data is returned, whether it includes subdirectories, or any side effects. It doesn't describe the operation's behavior in a way that goes beyond what the name and annotation already imply.

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 single sentence is efficient and contains actionable instruction, but it is not front-loaded with a human-readable purpose and mixes endpoint identification with parameter-passing mechanics. It's adequate but not exemplary in structure.

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 a generic schema, an output schema, and a huge sibling set, the description should clarify what files are being listed and how this differs from related tools. It fails to mention that a directoryID is required as a path variable or to explain 'scan directory files,' leaving the tool's role ambiguous.

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 provides zero parameter definitions, and the description only says to pass path variables, query values, and a body without specifying which ones exist or their meaning. The guidance is a helpful convention but leaves the actual parameters undocumented, failing to compensate for the 0% schema coverage.

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 rephrases the tool name as an endpoint call ('Call qui's GET /dir-scan/directories/{directoryID}/files endpoint') without stating the actual function of listing files in a scan directory. It doesn't explain what 'scan directory files' are or distinguish it from sibling tools like qui_list_scan_directories or qui_get_directory_content.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites or typical use cases. The parameter-passing instructions are syntax rules, not usage guidelines for tool selection.

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