qbittorrent_torrent_piece_hashes

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds that hashes are SHA1, cover all pieces, and are ordered, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose error conditions, authentication needs, or any other behavioral traits, leaving the annotation to carry the safety burden.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the essential information (SHA1 hashes, all pieces, one torrent, in order) and every word contributes meaning.

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 simple read-only nature and existing output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it fails to specify the meaning of the 'hash' parameter and provides no context about behavior for invalid hashes or non-existent torrents, leaving some ambiguity.

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 single parameter 'hash' has 0% schema description coverage, and the tool description does not explicitly state that it is the torrent hash. The phrase 'one torrent' implies it, but the description does not clarify the parameter's role, format, or that it must be the info hash of the torrent.

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 'SHA1 hashes of all pieces of one torrent, in order' clearly identifies the output resource and differentiates it from sibling tools like qbittorrent_torrent_piece_states by specifying 'hashes' rather than 'states'. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieve' or 'list', so it reads as a noun phrase rather than a complete command.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as qbittorrent_torrent_piece_states or other torrent-related operations. The description solely states what it returns, with no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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