qui_analyze_cross_seed_torrent

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true is not contradicted; the description adds that it's a GET request, which is consistent. However, it does not disclose what the analysis entails, expected inputs, or any other behavioral context beyond the annotation. Minimal added value for transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded: two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the endpoint, and the second adds practical guidance on argument passing. Both sentences earn their place, though the content is minimal.

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?

This is a simple GET call with an output schema, but the description omits essential context: what 'analyze' does, when it makes sense to call it, and specific parameter expectations. The output schema may cover return values, but the tool's purpose and usage remains unclear, making it incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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 is a generic 'arguments' object with no property descriptions, so the description's instruction to place path variables in arguments, query values in arguments.params, and body in arguments.body provides useful structural guidance. However, it does not list the specific path variables (e.g., instanceID, hash) or any query/body fields, leaving the agent to infer from the endpoint or other sources.

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 explicitly states the HTTP method and full endpoint path, which clarifies the exact operation being performed. However, it does not explain what 'analyze' means or what the tool accomplishes beyond calling the endpoint, making it only slightly more informative than the tool name.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of its many siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternative tools, or scenarios where analyzing a cross-seed torrent would be appropriate.

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