qbittorrent_app_version

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already covers the tool's safety profile. The description adds the example version format ('v5.0.4'), which is useful context, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like response structure or error conditions. This meets the baseline with a slight bonus for the example.

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 concise sentence that states the purpose and gives an example. It is front-loaded, contains no filler, and every word adds value. This is an ideal level of conciseness for a simple getter 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—zero parameters, a read-only annotation, and an output schema—the description is complete. It accurately describes the return value and even provides a concrete example. There are no missing pieces that would confuse an agent.

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 there is no parameter semantics to explain. The schema is empty and fully covered, and the description correctly avoids adding unnecessary parameter details. The baseline of 4 applies for tools with no parameters.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: returning the qBittorrent application version. It includes an example format, and the tool name 'qbittorrent_app_version' is distinct from siblings like 'qbittorrent_app_webapi_version' and 'qbittorrent_app_build_info', so differentiation is clear.

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 intended use is implied: to retrieve the application version. However, it does not explicitly mention when to choose this over alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. Since it's a simple getter, this is adequate but leaves room for more explicit guidance.

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