qui_get_torrent_peers

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates the read-only nature. The description adds the HTTP method (GET), which is consistent, but it provides no additional behavioral context such as required permissions, response characteristics, or error conditions. The instruction to pass a JSON request body for a GET endpoint is potentially misleading and unexplained.

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 two sentences with no redundant content. It front-loads the endpoint and succinctly provides the argument-passing convention. Every word is functional.

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 an output schema exists and readOnlyHint annotation is present, the description is relatively complete but minimal. It omits a clear functional summary and usage context, though the endpoint and argument pattern are provided. The generic argument instructions apply to all tools, not tailored to this one.

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 description explains the argument structure: path variables directly in arguments, query values in arguments.params, and request body in arguments.body. This adds value over the minimal schema which only has an open 'arguments' object. However, it does not enumerate the specific path variables (instanceID, hash) or any query parameters, leaving the agent to infer them from the 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 identifies the endpoint with HTTP method and resource path, indicating it retrieves peers for a torrent. However, it doesn't explicitly state the functional purpose in plain language, relying on the endpoint name to convey meaning. It distinguishes from siblings by naming a specific endpoint, but the description is mostly a restatement of the tool name.

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 like qui_get_torrent_properties or qui_get_torrent_trackers. It only explains the calling convention, not the selection criteria. There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios.

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