TorrentClaw-MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's a submission/initiation tool (not read-only), mentions rate limits ('Rate limited to 5 requests per hour'), and explains the asynchronous nature ('Results are not instant'). It doesn't cover error handling or authentication needs, but provides substantial 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?

Three tightly focused sentences with zero waste: first states purpose, second provides usage context, third covers behavioral constraints. Every sentence earns its place by adding distinct value, and the description is appropriately front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent context about purpose, usage, and behavioral constraints. It explains the asynchronous workflow and rate limiting, which are critical for proper use. The main gap is lack of information about return values or error cases, but overall it's quite complete for its complexity level.

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 fully documents both parameters (info_hash and email). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not enhanced parameter documentation.

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 ('submit a torrent for audio/video quality analysis') and resource ('torrent'), with detailed scope ('codec, tracks, resolution, HDR'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on quality analysis rather than searching, getting status, or other operations.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('when the user wants to know the exact media specs of a torrent before downloading') and when not to use ('Results are not instant — use get_scan_status to check progress'), with a clear alternative named (get_scan_status). This provides complete guidance on tool selection.

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