qui_list_scan_directory_runs

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

The readOnlyHint annotation is consistent with the GET method mentioned in the description, so there is no contradiction. The description adds little beyond the annotation—no details about response size, pagination, or potential rate limits, but the annotation already covers the read-only nature.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, yet it communicates the endpoint and the three-part argument structure. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the core action.

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 list operation with an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate for invocation. It lacks contextual information such as what a 'run' represents, how to interpret results, or any caveats like pagination, but the output schema likely covers return structure. No alternatives are mentioned.

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 essentially an empty object with only an 'arguments' property, and schema coverage is 0%. The description explains the generic argument structure (path variables, params, body) but fails to identify the required directoryID path variable or any query parameters. It leaves parameter specifics to be inferred from the endpoint URL, which is a significant gap.

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 endpoint and HTTP method (GET /dir-scan/directories/{directoryID}/runs), implying a read-only list operation for a specific directory's runs. It distinguishes from sibling tools via the resource path, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' in the description itself.

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?

It gives explicit instructions on how to structure arguments (path variables, params, body), which is essential for invoking the tool given the shallow input schema. However, it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus related tools like qui_list_scan_run_injections or qui_get_scan_directory_status.

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