qbittorrent_log_main

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true establishes safety, and the description adds behavioral detail: logs are returned as an array, filters default to include all classes, and last_known_id enables incremental fetching. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the primary purpose and then clarify filtering and incremental fetch options. No redundant wording or filler content; every sentence 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?

With an output schema present, the description appropriately avoids explaining return values in depth. It covers the main behaviors and parameters effectively. Minor gaps remain regarding ordering or limits of the log array, but these are not critical for invoking the tool correctly.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds full semantics for all five parameters: info, normal, warning, critical as boolean filters (default true), and last_known_id as an integer for fetching newer messages. This completely compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 the application log as a JSON array with a specific structure ({id, message, timestamp, type}). The verb 'fetch' is implied, and the resource is unambiguously the main application log, distinguishing it from sibling qbittorrent_log_peers.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: fetching application log entries with optional filtering by message class and incremental retrieval via last_known_id. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient to distinguish from the peer log tool.

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