qui_test_instance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only explains how to pass arguments (path, query, body) but does not state what the test action does, whether it is read-only or has side effects, or what kind of response to expect. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like 'test' endpoint.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the endpoint, and every word earns its place. No fluff, no redundancy.

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, the description is incomplete for safe and correct use. It omits the purpose/effect of 'test' (e.g., connectivity check, configuration validation), any side effects, and required path variables are only implied. The generic schema and absent annotations leave the description as the main source of context, and it does not fully cover the operation.

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 schema is completely generic (a single `arguments` object with no properties). The description compensates by providing a clear convention: path variables directly in arguments, query values in arguments.params, and JSON body in arguments.body. This adds meaningful structure beyond the empty schema, though it does not enumerate specific fields like instanceID.

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 target resource and action: 'Call qui's POST /instances/{instanceID}/test endpoint.' This clearly identifies testing a specific instance, and the path distinguishes it from sibling tools that test other resources (arr, torznab, notification targets).

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative exclusions are given. The usage is implied by the endpoint name and path, but the description does not contrast with other test tools or state prerequisites. It is adequate but relies on inference.

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