qbittorrent_app_webapi_version

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds modest context by clarifying that the version is 'implemented by this qBittorrent' and giving an example output format. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like potential errors, response structure, or rate limits.

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 directly states what the tool returns and provides an example. No filler or redundant information is present.

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, output schema exists, read-only annotation), the description is largely sufficient. However, the lack of differentiation from qbittorrent_app_version is a small gap, and the description could have mentioned when to prefer this endpoint.

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 schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters. The description does not need to add parameter details.

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 that the tool returns the WebAPI version implemented by this qBittorrent, with an example value (2.14.1). It uses a specific resource (WebAPI version) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like qbittorrent_app_version.

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 such as qbittorrent_app_version. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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