qui_get_active_trackers

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation, so the description's burden is lower, but it adds no behavioral context beyond the argument structure. It does not describe what the tool returns, what 'active trackers' means, or any side effects, leaving the agent to infer behavior.

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 is extremely concise and front-loaded with the endpoint. Every part is necessary, and there is no redundant or verbose language.

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?

The presence of an output schema likely covers return values, but the description lacks domain context (what are active trackers?) and any usage guidance. For a simple read-only endpoint, it is minimally adequate but leaves gaps in understanding when and why to use this 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 blob with zero coverage, so the description's explanation of how to pass path variables, query values, and body is essential and adds significant meaning. It provides a clear pattern for structuring arguments, even though it does not enumerate specific parameter names.

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 specifies the exact HTTP endpoint (GET /instances/{instanceID}/trackers) and how to structure arguments, which is specific but does not clearly state the semantic purpose of retrieving active trackers. It is more of a low-level call instruction than a purpose statement, but it does distinguish the resource by endpoint path.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like qui_get_torrent_trackers or qui_list_tracker_customizations. The description only explains how to invoke the endpoint, not the contexts in which it is appropriate.

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