qui_preview_rss_rule_matches

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

The annotation readOnlyHint: true is consistent with the description's 'GET' method, so there is no contradiction. The description adds the HTTP method and argument structure, but these are more about parameter semantics than behavioral disclosure. It does not mention potential response behavior, but the existence of an output schema reduces the need for that here. Overall, the description adds some value but does not go deeply beyond 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, dense sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the endpoint and immediately explains the argument layout. Every clause contributes to the agent's understanding, making it highly efficient.

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 the generic schema and presence of an output schema, the description is partially complete. It explains how to structure arguments, but it omits any functional context (what a preview does) and does not explicitly identify required path variables. The endpoint placeholders imply instanceID and ruleName, but a fully complete description would state these explicitly. The output schema covers return values, so that omission is acceptable.

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 a generic 'arguments' object with zero description coverage, so the description must carry the burden. It does so by explaining the mapping: path variables directly in arguments, query values in arguments.params, and a JSON body in arguments.body. This is essential but it stops short of listing the specific path variables (instanceID, ruleName) or query parameters, which the agent must infer from the endpoint URL. Still, this significantly compensates for the schema's lack of structure.

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 specific endpoint and HTTP method (GET /instances/{instanceID}/rss/rules/{ruleName}/preview), which distinguishes it from sibling RSS tools. However, it does not explain what the preview operation functionally does; the meaning is left to the tool name 'preview_rss_rule_matches'. Thus it is specific but not fully explicit about purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states how to call the endpoint, without explaining context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria. For an agent choosing among many RSS- and preview-related tools, this lack of usage context is a significant gap.

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