qbittorrent_app_build_info

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers non-destructiveness. The description adds value by enumerating exactly what data is returned (Qt, libtorrent, Boost, OpenSSL, bitness), which is useful context beyond the annotation. No side effects are mentioned, but none are expected given the read-only nature.

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, front-loaded sentence that delivers all essential information with no waste. It is ideal for a simple informational tool.

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 simplicity (no parameters, read-only, output schema present), the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. The output schema handles return value details, so no further explanation is required.

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, and the baseline for no parameters is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters, and the empty schema provides complete coverage. No additional semantics are needed.

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 tool returns build information including Qt, libtorrent, Boost, OpenSSL versions, and app bitness. This distinctively separates it from sibling tools like qbittorrent_app_version and qbittorrent_app_webapi_version, which focus on application and WebAPI versions.

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 implies usage when build info is needed, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to similar version-related tools. It lacks clear when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance, though the purpose is unambiguous.

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