List gallery torrents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety profile is clear. The description adds value by explicitly stating it never downloads torrents, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations.

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 two concise sentences with a clear use declaration and a clarifying exclusion. Every sentence adds value, front-loaded with purpose.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to detail return values. The tool is simple (list torrents) with good annotations. However, the schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage inside the schema, and the high-level description doesn't fully compensate for the missing parameter semantics, leaving a moderate gap for an agent to correctly invoke this tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate entirely. The description mentions 'current and outdated torrent metadata' and 'official .torrent links' but provides no guidance on which parameters (site, gallery, galleryUrl) correspond to what data or how to use them. Two parameters are undocumented at the schema level and the description adds no meaning, leaving the agent guessing.

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 says this tool reads torrent metadata and provides official .torrent links, distinguishing it from downloading. The title 'List gallery torrents' is consistent and clear. However, it could better differentiate from sibling tools like eh_get_gallery_metadata which might also return metadata.

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 states a clear when-not-to-use: 'This tool never downloads a torrent.' But among 27 sibling tools, many deal with gallery data, and no explicit guidance is given on when to use this over alternatives like eh_get_gallery_detail or eh_resolve_gallery for obtaining torrent info.

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