List Torrents via Loopback RPC

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

The description discloses the SSH loopback tunnel transport and bounded scope, adding context beyond annotations. It is consistent with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but does not elaborate on failure modes, result format, or tunnel dependencies.

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, front-loading the action, scope, and mechanism. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundant phrases.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description is reasonably complete with purpose, field list, transport, and read-only nature. However, 'bounded' could be more explicit about result limits or pagination.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds meaning by enumerating the returned fields, which is the only semantic value beyond the empty schema.

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 it reports torrent status with a specific field set (name, state, progress, ratio, label, totals) via SSH loopback RPC. It is distinct from sibling whatbox_torrent_clients_status, but does not explicitly name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like whatbox_torrent_clients_status. The description explains what it does but not the context or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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