qui_get_torrent_trackers

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the operation as read-only, lowering the bar. The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and endpoint context, but does not disclose additional behavioral details like required authorization or error conditions. This meets the baseline but adds no extra depth.

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 efficiently conveys the endpoint and parameter structuring rules with no redundant information. It is well-sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The description covers the essential invocation pattern despite the generic schema, and the presence of an output schema means return values need not be documented. However, mentioning a JSON request body for a GET endpoint is atypical and could mislead; it also fails to explicitly state that instanceID and hash are required path parameters.

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 a generic 'arguments' object with zero property descriptions, so the description's instruction to place path variables, query values, and body in specific argument fields adds necessary structure. However, it does not name the path variables (instanceID, hash) or any query/body fields, requiring inference from the endpoint URL.

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 explicitly names the exact endpoint (GET /instances/{instanceID}/torrents/{hash}/trackers), making the verb and resource unambiguous. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like qui_get_torrent_peers or 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?

The description implies usage when trackers for a specific torrent need to be retrieved, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It focuses on argument structuring rather than providing selection guidance.

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