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 effectively communicates that this is a read-only operation (returns a URL), specifies the return format ('single URL'), and indicates how the output can be used ('open in their browser or torrent client'). It doesn't mention potential errors, rate limits, or authentication requirements, but provides solid operational 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 perfectly concise with two focused sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and usage guidelines, the second describes the return value and how to use it. Every word serves a clear purpose with zero waste or 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides excellent context about what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. It could potentially mention error cases or that the URL might expire, but overall it's quite complete for this level of complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'info_hash' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation without providing extra value.

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 specific action ('Get a direct .torrent file download URL') and resource ('from an info_hash'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_content that provide magnet links. It explicitly defines what the tool does in a single, unambiguous sentence.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('when the user specifically wants a .torrent file rather than a magnet link') and provides a clear alternative ('magnet links are already in search_content results'). This gives perfect guidance on tool selection versus available alternatives.

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