qui_test_arr_instance

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

Annotations are absent, and the description only gives the instruction to call the endpoint. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, what errors may occur, or any authentication requirements. The description carries the full burden and fails to address these.

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, direct sentence that wastes no words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the endpoint reference and follows with parameter passing instructions in a clear, logical order.

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?

With no annotations, a generic schema, and a sparse description, the tool is insufficiently specified. The presence of an output schema helps but does not offset the lack of purpose, usage context, or behavioral detail. An agent would have difficulty selecting this tool among many similar 'test' endpoints without more information.

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 no specific properties (0% coverage). The description compensates by defining a general convention: path variables in arguments, query values in arguments.params, and JSON body in arguments.body. However, it does not enumerate the expected path variable (e.g., 'id') or list query/body fields, leaving the agent to guess.

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 explicitly names the HTTP method and endpoint path ('POST /arr/instances/{id}/test'), which adds specificity beyond the tool name. However, it does not explain what the endpoint does (e.g., tests connectivity or configuration of an ARR instance), leaving the semantic purpose largely to inference from the name.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as qui_test_arr_connection or qui_test_torznab_indexer. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context hints about appropriate usage scenarios.

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