Inspect Supported Torrent Clients

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, which covers safety. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: it states the output is scoped to only allowlisted client running states, explicitly not including torrent details or unrelated processes. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies what the tool will not reveal.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that states the action, the target, and the scope/exclusions, all without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 zero parameters, a rich set of annotations, and an output schema (indicated), the description provides enough context for an agent to understand what this tool does and its position among siblings. The focus on checking client status versus torrent status is clearly communicated, making it complete for a simple status-check 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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. Per guidelines, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline score of 4. The description correctly focuses on behavior rather than input, which is appropriate for a no-parameter report.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('allowlisted Whatbox torrent clients') and clearly defines scope: 'without returning torrent or unrelated process details.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like whatbox_torrents_status, which presumably reports on torrents themselves, and other status tools.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need to know if torrent client processes are running, not torrent data. The explicit exclusion of 'torrent or unrelated process details' provides context for why you'd choose this over a broader status tool. However, it doesn't explicitly name an alternative or provide a direct 'use when' instruction.

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