qbittorrent_torrent_properties

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

readOnlyHint already marks this safe, and the description adds the useful 404-if-hash-not-found behavior and a concrete list of returned properties. No annotations are contradicted.

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: the first states the purpose and enumerates example fields, the second states the error condition. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read-only lookup with an output schema, the description covers purpose, returned fields, and error behavior. It lacks usage context and parameter source guidance, but the remaining gaps are minor.

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 input schema only defines a required string 'hash' with no description. The tool description mentions 'the hash' only in the 404 clause, adding no explanation of valid values, format, or how to obtain the hash from sibling tools.

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 as returning generic properties of a single torrent and lists representative fields. It stops short of explicitly differentiating from sibling torrent_* tools, though 'one torrent' provides some scope.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when you need top-level metadata for one torrent. There is no explicit guidance about when to prefer qbittorrent_torrents_list or qbittorrent_torrent_contents, nor any exclusions.

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