qui_trigger_orphan_scan

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention any side effects, whether the scan runs synchronously or asynchronously, required permissions, or what the response contains. The description is purely a low-level HTTP call instruction and gives no behavioral context.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It does bundle multiple instructions, but each phrase is needed to convey the argument mapping. It is appropriately compact, though slightly technical and dense.

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), the description doesn't explain what the tool actually accomplishes or what a successful trigger looks like. It omits key details such as the need for an instanceID, whether the scan is immediate/queued, and how results are retrieved. For a trigger action, this is insufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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 minimal (a generic 'arguments' object with no defined properties). The description adds some structure by explaining that path variables go directly in arguments, query values under arguments.params, and the request body under arguments.body. This is useful but still does not specify which path variables (e.g., instanceID) or query/body fields are required or optional, leaving much ambiguity.

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 a specific endpoint ('POST /instances/{instanceID}/orphan-scan/scan') and the tool name 'trigger_orphan_scan' implies its action. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'cancel_orphan_scan' or 'list_orphan_scan_runs'. However, it does not explicitly state 'triggers an orphan scan', relying instead on the endpoint path and 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only explains how to construct the arguments for the API call, with no mention of prerequisites (e.g., a valid instance ID) or scenarios where this action is appropriate. This is a clear gap.

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