qui_orphan_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While it reveals HTTP methods (DELETE, POST, GET, PUT) implying mutating vs. read operations, it does not disclose side effects, destructive consequences, authentication needs, or response implications. For operations like cancel or confirm, destruction is implicit but not stated.

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 starts with a concise instruction on how to pass operations and arguments, then presents a clear list of sub-operations with methods and endpoints. It is reasonably concise and well-organized, though slightly verbose due to the repetition of 'qui_' prefixes.

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 multi-operation tool with no per-operation documentation, the description is incomplete. It does not specify required arguments for each operation, expected return values (though output schema exists), side effects, or error conditions. The description is merely an endpoint list and a routing pattern, leaving significant gaps.

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 description explains the generic pattern for arguments (path variables, query params, body) but does not detail the specific parameters required for each operation. Since input schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it only offers a template without per-operation 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 clearly states it handles orphan scan operations on qui, listing seven specific sub-operations with HTTP methods and endpoints. This distinguishes it from sibling tools by domain, though it lacks a single concise summary sentence and instead uses a list.

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 usage context by implying the tool is for orphan scan management and instructs how to pass operations and arguments, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other qui_* tools or when not to use it. No alternatives are mentioned.

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