qbittorrent_torrent_web_seeds

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 the result is an array of {url}, but that is a return-value detail rather than a behavioral trait. Since an output schema exists, this adds minimal extra context. No side effects, auth needs, or error conditions are described, but the read-only annotation covers the primary concern.

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 extremely concise—a single short phrase with no filler. It gets to the point immediately and is easy to parse. However, it is perhaps too thin, sacrificing useful detail for brevity, so it doesn't reach the top score.

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 simplicity (one parameter, read-only, array output), the description is almost sufficient. The presence of an output schema means return values are already structured, and the readOnlyHint covers safety. The main gap is the lack of parameter semantics, which leaves the description slightly incomplete for an agent that doesn't already know qBittorrent's hash convention.

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 one required parameter, 'hash', with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description only says 'one torrent', which implicitly relates 'hash' to identifying a torrent, but it does not explain the format, how to obtain it, or any other useful semantics. With zero schema coverage, the description needed to compensate but does not.

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 (web seeds of one torrent) and the return shape (array of {url}). It distinguishes from sibling tools which cover trackers, properties, and contents, since web seeds are a specific aspect. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', which slightly reduces clarity.

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 usage context is implied: you use this when you need web seeds for a specific torrent identified by hash. There is no explicit mention of alternatives or when not to use it, but the uniqueness among siblings makes the intended use reasonably clear. It lacks the explicit guidance seen in higher-scoring examples.

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