qbittorrent_torrent_piece_states

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that the tool is safe and read-only. The description adds value by explaining the integer encoding for piece states, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as the order of pieces, handling of invalid hashes, or return format details.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the essential state mappings without any filler. It is perfectly sized for the simplicity of the tool.

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 read-only tool with an output schema, the description provides the key interpretation of the integer values, which is likely not covered by the schema. It is sufficient for the agent to understand what the tool returns, though it lacks minor context about ordering or error behavior.

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%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It only implicitly references the 'hash' parameter by saying 'one torrent', but does not explicitly explain what the hash is, its format, or that it is required, leaving interpretation to the parameter name.

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 that the tool returns piece states for one torrent, with an explicit mapping for integer values (0 not downloaded, 1 downloading, 2 downloaded). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like qbittorrent_torrent_piece_hashes, which would return hashes rather than 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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or specific contexts. It relies entirely on the tool name and description to hint at its use, leaving the agent to infer when it is appropriate.

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