qui_get_torrent_webseeds

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description's GET endpoint aligns. It adds the argument-passing convention (path vs query vs body) which is useful, but doesn't describe response behavior or error conditions beyond what the output schema covers.

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?

Two concise sentences: first identifies the endpoint and operation, second explains the argument structure. 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?

For a simple read-only GET with an output schema, the description covers the key invocation pattern. It could be improved by explicitly naming the required path variables, but the endpoint template makes them inferable.

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?

Input schema has only a generic 'arguments' object with 0% coverage, so the description's instruction to pass path vars directly in arguments, query values in arguments.params, and body in arguments.body adds essential structure. However, it doesn't enumerate the specific path parameters (instanceID, hash) or any query options, leaving the agent to infer them 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?

Description states it calls the dedicated webseeds endpoint for a torrent, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like qui_get_torrent_peers or qui_get_torrent_files. The verb 'GET' and resource path specify exactly what is retrieved.

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 guidance on when to choose this over other torrent sub-resource tools; usage is implied by the endpoint name. It provides no alternatives or exclusions, though the purpose is clear from the endpoint.

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