qui_get_torrent_properties

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

The description states it's a GET request, which aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation, but adds little beyond that. It doesn't disclose response structure or any side effects, though the output schema covers return values.

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 sentence that front-loads the endpoint and then clearly explains the argument structure. Every word earns its place with no 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 tool is a thin wrapper and the output schema exists, the description sufficiently covers the invocation pattern. It lacks explicit mention of what the response contains, but the output schema compensates, making this complete for a simple GET tool.

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 0% schema coverage, the description provides a crucial convention for passing path variables, query values, and body, which adds significant meaning beyond the loose 'arguments' schema. It doesn't list actual parameters, but the generic pattern is essential for invocation.

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 endpoint for fetching torrent properties, making the tool's purpose clear through the resource path. It distinguishes from sibling tools like qui_get_torrent_field or qui_get_torrent_trackers, although it doesn't explicitly state 'retrieves 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?

Usage is implied by the endpoint name and the generic call instructions, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any prerequisites. The sibling list provides context but the description itself doesn't clarify selection criteria.

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