qbittorrent_torrent_contents

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no additional read-only disclosure is needed. The description adds value by specifying output fields and the filtering behavior, but it does not discuss edge cases like empty results or error conditions. Given the annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 compact sentences: the first lists the output fields and the second explains the optional filter. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 description covers the resource, all returned fields, the meaning of priority values, and the optional filtering behavior. An output schema exists, so detailed return-value documentation is not required. This is complete for a simple read-only tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates partially by explaining the 'indexes' parameter (pipe-separated, fetch only those files) and decoding priority values. The 'hash' parameter is left implicit as the torrent identifier, which is understandable but not explicitly documented.

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 resource ('Files of one torrent') and enumerates the returned fields, making its purpose evident. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', but the meaning is unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling tools like torrent_properties or piece_states.

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 clearly sets the context: this is for fetching files belonging to a single torrent, with optional filtering via pipe-separated indexes. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the usage scenario is straightforward and effectively communicated.

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