qui_get_torrent_creation_status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a read-only operation. The description adds value by specifying argument routing: path variables directly, query values in arguments.params, and JSON body in arguments.body. This is beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose whether a request body is actually expected for a GET, nor does it mention any response behavior or error conditions.

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 immediately states the endpoint and then explains argument routing. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no redundant information. Every word contributes to the calling conventions.

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 that the tool has an output schema and a readOnlyHint, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It adequately covers the argument-passing conventions. However, it lacks usage context (when to call this) and detailed parameter semantics, which makes it incomplete for a tool that requires an instanceID path variable. The description is sufficient for a simple GET but not fully contextual.

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 only has a generic 'arguments' object with no field-level descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that path variables go directly in arguments, query values go in arguments.params, and the body goes in arguments.body. This provides structural meaning, but it does not list the actual path variables (e.g., instanceID) or any query parameters, leaving the agent to infer from the endpoint URL.

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 tool as calling GET /instances/{instanceID}/torrent-creator/status, which indicates it retrieves torrent creation status. The endpoint and tool name are aligned, and it is distinct from siblings like qui_get_active_torrent_creation_count and qui_delete_torrent_creation_task. However, it doesn't explicitly state 'get status' in plain language; it just says 'call the endpoint.'

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only explains how to structure arguments for the request, with no mention of typical use cases such as polling after creating a torrent or checking the status of a specific creation task. It does not reference sibling tools like qui_create_torrent or qui_get_active_torrent_creation_count.

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