TorrentClaw-MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return values (pending, scanning, completed, failed) which is helpful, but doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description adds some behavioral context but leaves gaps for a status-checking tool.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first states what the tool does and returns, the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place with zero waste.

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?

For a single-parameter status-checking tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context about what it returns and when to use it. However, it could be more complete by mentioning whether this is a read operation (implied but not stated) and providing more detail about the return format beyond just listing status values.

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 the single parameter completely. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (info_hash as 40-character hex for torrent to check). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('check the status') and resource ('torrent audio/video scan request'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by referencing 'submit_scan_request' as a prerequisite. It explicitly identifies what it returns (current scan status with possible values).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use after submit_scan_request.' This clearly defines the prerequisite context and distinguishes it from alternatives by indicating it's for checking status after a scan request has been submitted.

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