qui_get_torznab_activity

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already marks the tool as safe, and the description adds some context by specifying it's a GET request with path/query/body argument conventions. However, it doesn't disclose the return shape or any special behaviors beyond that. This is acceptable but minimal.

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 immediately identifies the endpoint and then provides concise, structured instructions. No wasted words, well front-loaded.

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 mechanical details of how to invoke the endpoint but omits semantic information about what 'activity' represents or when to use the tool. An output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere, but the tool still lacks a clear purpose statement.

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 completely generic (one free-form 'arguments' object), and description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining how to pass path variables, query values, and body data, which is essential for using the tool. It doesn't list specific parameter names, but the structural guidance earns a strong score.

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 states a specific action ('Call qui's GET /torznab/activity endpoint') and names the resource, making the tool's function clear at a basic level. However, it doesn't explain what 'activity' means or how it differs from sibling tools like qui_get_torznab_search_cache, so it stops short of full clarity.

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. It only gives instructions on argument formatting, not usage context or exclusions. No sibling tools are mentioned.

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