qbittorrent_torrent_trackers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value by explaining the status codes (0-4) and the output fields. It does not disclose any side effects or error conditions, but for a simple read-only operation this is sufficient and goes beyond the annotations.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Trackers of one torrent') and then lists the fields concisely. There is no wasted wording, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 low complexity (one parameter, read-only, output schema provided), the description covers the key output data and status codes. It lacks explanatory details about the hash parameter, but for a focused read tool this is a minor gap and the overall description is complete enough for an agent to use it 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?

The input schema has a single 'hash' parameter with no description (0% coverage), and the tool description does not explain what the hash represents or its required format (e.g., info hash, hexadecimal). While 'one torrent' implies hash identifies the torrent, essential details are missing.

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's purpose: returning trackers of one torrent. It lists the specific fields (url, status, tier, counts, msg), which unambiguously identifies the resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like qbittorrent_torrent_properties or qbittorrent_torrent_web_seeds.

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 implies its usage context (when you need tracker details for a torrent) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The purpose is clear enough to infer usage, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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