appqos_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the only source of behavioral information. It explicitly states 'read-only', which is a valuable safety cue for an agent. However, it does not describe what the returned profile contains, whether it reflects running or saved configuration, or any failure conditions.

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 short phrase that front-loads the resource and read-only nature. Every word contributes; there is no filler. For a zero-parameter view tool, this is appropriately sized.

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 is simple (no params, no output schema, no annotations), and the description gives the core action and safety profile. Still, it omits any detail about the content or format of the APP QoS profile data and does not differentiate from other QoS-related tools, so an agent gets only minimal context.

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 empty and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. For a zero-parameter tool, the description correctly conveys that no arguments are needed.

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 names the exact resource ('APP QoS profile') and operation ('view'), and explicitly marks it read-only, which separates it from mutation siblings like appqos_enable. It is concise and not a tautology. The intent is unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as qos_setup, qos_class, or appqos_enable. The 'view' wording implies an inspection use case, but there are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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