qui_get_active_torrent_creation_count

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms a GET request, which is consistent. Beyond that, no additional behavioral traits are disclosed, such as error behavior if the instance does not exist or authentication requirements. The description adds the endpoint template but does not enrich the safety profile beyond what annotations provide.

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 directly states the endpoint and the argument-passing format. It avoids unnecessary words, but it is somewhat telegraphic and could be expanded with a brief purpose statement without harming conciseness.

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 GET endpoint, the description is minimal. It fails to name the required path variable, explain the count's meaning, or mention any query parameters. While an output schema exists, it does not compensate for the lack of invocation details here, leaving the agent to infer correct usage from the endpoint template and tool name.

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 free-form object with 0% parameter coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides a generic convention for passing path variables, query params, and body, but does not specify which path variables are required (e.g., instanceID) or whether any query parameters are supported. This is a significant gap given the schema's emptiness.

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 names the specific endpoint and HTTP method ('GET /instances/{instanceID}/torrent-creator/count'), which conveys the tool's function of retrieving a count. The tool name adds semantic meaning about active torrent creations, but the description does not explicitly state 'get the count of active torrent creation tasks'. It is distinguishable from siblings like qui_get_torrent_creation_status due to the '/count' suffix.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid instanceID). The only instruction is about how to structure arguments, not about the tool's selection criteria.

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