qui_get_torrent_pieces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict it. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the HTTP method, such as permissions, rate limits, or side effects. With annotations covering safety, a neutral 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with endpoint, and no fluff. Every clause is informative for making the call. Excellent conciseness.

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 don't need description. The endpoint and argument-structuring conventions are clear. Minor gap: doesn't explicitly state which placeholders are path variables, but they are visible in the endpoint itself. Adequate for a simple GET.

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 generic with only an 'arguments' object and no property descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining how to structure arguments: path variables directly, query values in arguments.params, body in arguments.body. However, it doesn't list the specific required fields (instanceID, hash) or query/body parameters 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?

Description explicitly states it calls the GET /instances/{instanceID}/torrents/{hash}/pieces endpoint, naming the exact resource and action. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like qui_get_torrent_peers and qui_get_torrent_files.

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?

No explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. The endpoint and name imply it's for retrieving torrent piece information, but there's no mention of exclusions or alternative tools. The usage is implied rather than stated.

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