qui_get_torrent_field

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals the parameter-passing convention (path, query, body) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what consequences it has, or what response format to expect. The POST method implies mutation, but the description neither confirms nor denies it.

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 concise sentence with no filler words, clearly front-loaded with the endpoint. Its brevity is efficient but comes at the cost of omitting substantive purpose and usage information.

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 position within a large family of similar API wrappers, the description lacks a functional summary, selection criteria, or behavioral details. The output schema exists, but the definition still does not equip an agent to decide when to invoke this tool versus others. It provides only a minimal invocation hint.

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 schema provides only a generic 'arguments' object with no property details (0% coverage). The description adds useful structure by specifying that path variables go directly in arguments, query values in arguments.params, and the JSON body in arguments.body. However, it does not enumerate the required fields for this specific endpoint, so the agent must infer them from the endpoint name.

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 identifies the exact REST endpoint (POST /instances/{instanceID}/torrents/field) and HTTP method, which gives some specificity. However, the verb 'Call' is generic and does not explain what 'field' means or what the operation accomplishes, leaving functional ambiguity. It distinguishes from siblings only by endpoint path, not by purpose.

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 alternative torrent-related tools like qui_get_torrent_properties or qui_list_torrents. It only explains how to pass arguments, not the use-case context or selection criteria.

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