qui_get_torrent_files

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

The annotation readOnlyHint: true already conveys the safe read-only nature of this tool. The description adds the endpoint context (GET) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as response structure, pagination, or error behavior. Given the annotation, the description adds minimal but sufficient context, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 that is front-loaded with the endpoint and follows with concrete instructions on argument handling. Every phrase adds value; there is no filler 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 existence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the invocation pattern thoroughly for a simple GET tool. However, it omits any note about required path variables (instanceID, hash) being mandatory, which would be useful for the agent to know, though it is inferable from the endpoint path.

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?

With schema coverage at 0% and a generic 'arguments' object, the description compensates well by explaining the argument structure: path variables directly, query values in 'arguments.params', and JSON body in 'arguments.body'. This is essential semantic information beyond the empty schema, and it clearly maps to the endpoint's variables.

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 specifies the tool's function: calling the GET /instances/{instanceID}/torrents/{hash}/files endpoint, which indicates retrieval of torrent file listings for a given instance and hash. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like qui_get_torrent_properties or qui_get_torrent_trackers.

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, but does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. There is no explicit 'when to use' or comparison with sibling tools.

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