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 describes key behaviors: it returns metadata and torrent download options, explains that results include a content_id for other tools, details how to present results to users (clickable magnet links, user-friendly format), and mentions auto-detection of season/episode from queries. However, it lacks information on rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, which are important for a complex search 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and usage guidelines. It efficiently covers key points in three sentences, but the last sentence with formatting instructions is lengthy and could be streamlined. Most sentences earn their place by adding value beyond the schema, though some redundancy exists with parameter mentions.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (19 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description does a good job of providing context. It explains the tool's role as primary, output format, dependencies with other tools, and presentation guidelines. However, it doesn't describe the return structure (e.g., pagination, error responses) or performance considerations, leaving some gaps for a tool of this scope.

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 all 19 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema—it mentions filtering by 'title, genre, year, rating, or quality' and season/episode handling, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples that aren't already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline of 3 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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for movies and TV shows by title, genre, year, rating, or quality.' It specifies the resource (movies/TV shows), the action (search with multiple filters), and distinguishes it from siblings by calling it 'the primary tool' for finding/downloading content, unlike autocomplete or get_popular which serve different purposes.

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 clear usage guidance: 'This is the primary tool — use it first when a user asks to find, download, or learn about a movie or TV show.' It explicitly names when to use it (first for search/download tasks) and implies alternatives by mentioning other tools like get_watch_providers and get_credits that depend on its output, helping the agent choose correctly among siblings.

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