qui_list_scan_run_injections

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the HTTP method and argument structure, such as pagination, response format, authorization requirements, or side effects. It neither contradicts nor enriches the annotation, but fails to disclose anything beyond what annotations already provide.

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 packs in the endpoint and the argument-passing convention without redundancy. Every phrase adds value, and the information is front-loaded with the resource identifier.

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 that an output schema exists (as indicated in context signals), the description need not explain return values. The description covers the essential invocation details: the endpoint, how to supply path/query/body data, and implicitly identifies variables via the URL template. It lacks explicit query parameter names, but the tool appears simple enough that the provided pattern likely suffices.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It provides a general rule (path vars in arguments, query in params, body in body) but does not enumerate the actual path variables or query parameters beyond the URL template. This is helpful for agents familiar with the API but incomplete for those without prior knowledge of the endpoint.

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 names the exact HTTP endpoint (GET /dir-scan/directories/{directoryID}/runs/{runID}/injections), which makes the tool's function clear and distinguishes it from sibling tools that list other resources (e.g., runs, files). However, it frames the purpose as 'Call endpoint' rather than explicitly stating the result (e.g., 'List injections'), slightly reducing clarity.

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 explains the argument-passing convention (path vars, query params, body) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus related tools like qui_list_scan_directory_runs or qui_list_scan_directory_files. It implies usage for retrieving injection data for a specific run but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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