qbittorrent_search_start

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

Annotations indicate the operation is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds that it starts a job and returns an id, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like asynchronous execution, potential resource usage, or how to cancel via qbittorrent_search_stop. Given annotations already cover the safety profile, the description adds modest value.

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 sentences, quickly states purpose and then parameter meaning. It is efficient and front-loaded, with no redundant information.

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?

The tool has an output schema (so return value guidance isn't needed), and annotations cover safety. However, the description omits any explanation of the required 'pattern' parameter and doesn't mention the relationship to other search tools (e.g., that a started job can be queried with qbittorrent_search_status or results). For a 3-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, this leaves a gap.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%. The description explains the 'plugins' parameter (pipe-separated names or 'all'/'enabled') and 'category' (limits search depending on plugin), but does not explain the required 'pattern' parameter, which is left ambiguous. This partially compensates for the schema's lack of 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 identifies the tool's action ('Start a search job'), the resource (a search job), and the return value (its id). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like qbittorrent_search_stop, qbittorrent_search_status, and qbittorrent_search_results.

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 on how to specify plugins and category, but doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use. It gives enough clarity that an agent would know this is the starting point for a search, though it lacks explicit workflow guidance such as using search_results to retrieve results.

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