qc_check_api

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses sequential execution, but does not mention other behaviors such as error handling, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens on first failure.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

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 has no output schema, so the description should explain the return format. It only says 'report which ones...' without specifying the structure (e.g., list, counts, errors). Missing details on handling of failed endpoints or non-200 statuses.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters well. The description does not add new meaning beyond stating that the tool reports which endpoints return expected status, which aligns with the parameter 'expected_status'.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Test a list of API endpoints'), the resource ('API endpoints'), and the output ('report which ones return the expected HTTP status'). It also specifies sequential execution, distinguishing it from siblings like qc_copy_audit and qc_run_checklist.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The description implies usage for testing endpoints, but lacks exclusions or mentions of alternative tools.

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