qui_reset_scan_directory_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is destructive, what side effects occur, or whether it requires specific permissions. The term 'reset' suggests mutation but the description does not elaborate or warn.

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 concise, with two sentences and no filler. It front-loads the endpoint and then explains the argument structure. However, it could be better structured by separating the functional purpose from the invocation details.

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?

The tool has a minimal schema and no annotations, so the description must provide full context. It lacks a functional summary, parameter specifics, and any guidance on the response or side effects. The argument structure is explained, but the absence of endpoint-specific details makes it incomplete for correct invocation.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the only parameter is a free-form arguments object. The description adds structural guidance (path variables at top level, query in .params, body in .body) but does not list the specific path variables, query parameters, or body fields. The endpoint path indicates a directoryID is required, but the description doesn't explicitly mention it as a required argument.

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 identifies the endpoint but does not explain the tool's functional purpose. The name and endpoint imply it resets scan directory files, but the description only provides the API call pattern, making the purpose vague about the actual effect.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools. The description focuses entirely on how to invoke the endpoint, not on the use case or prerequisites. An agent would not know whether to choose this over qui_list_scan_directory_files or qui_scan_directory.

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