qui_get_torrent_file_mediainfo

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it is a GET request and explains the argument-passing convention. However, it does not disclose potential error behavior, response format, or any special conditions beyond that.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the endpoint and then gives clear argument conventions. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 output schema exists, return values are covered elsewhere. The description sufficiently explains input structure and the endpoint path, allowing an agent to infer the required path variables. It could be more complete by listing those variables explicitly or noting any required query parameters, but it is adequate for a simple GET wrapper.

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 entirely generic with a single 'arguments' object and no specific parameter definitions. The description compensates by explaining that path variables go directly, query values under arguments.params, and JSON body under arguments.body. This is critical given the 0% schema coverage, though it does not enumerate the exact variables for this endpoint.

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 a specific operation: calling the GET endpoint for torrent file mediainfo. It names the exact resource path with variables, making it distinct from sibling tools like qui_get_instance_mediainfo or qui_get_torrent_properties.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only explains how to structure the call, not the intended use case or any prerequisites. No references to if the file index is required or how to obtain it.

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