qui_scan_directory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, authorization needs, or whether the scan is asynchronous. It only mentions making a POST request, which implies a mutation but doesn't state what changes or consequences occur. No behavioral traits beyond the HTTP method are disclosed.

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, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the endpoint and HTTP method, then concisely explains the argument structure. Every word earns its place; there is no unnecessary content.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown) and a clear endpoint, the description lacks context: it doesn't explain the tool's purpose, when to use it, or any side effects. Given the large set of sibling tools and the absence of annotations, this is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's role and behavior. It is a low-level API call instruction rather than a complete tool description.

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 extremely generic, with a single opaque 'arguments' object and 0% schema description coverage. The description compensates meaningfully by explaining how to pass path variables directly in arguments, query values in arguments.params, and a JSON body in arguments.body. This is essential, though it doesn't list the specific parameters for this endpoint (other than directoryID visible in the path).

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 exact endpoint (POST /dir-scan/directories/{directoryID}/scan) and method, clearly indicating it triggers a scan for a specific directory. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list, get, update, or delete scan directories. However, it doesn't explicitly state the high-level action in plain language (e.g., 'triggers a scan'), which would strengthen 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related scan-directory tools (e.g., qui_cancel_directory_scan, qui_get_scan_directory_status). It only explains how to structure the API call, not the conditions or prerequisites for invoking it. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions.

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