qui_list_torrents

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, and the description confirms a GET request, which is consistent. The description adds the endpoint structure and argument passing convention, which is useful but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as required path variables (e.g., instanceID), error conditions, or response characteristics. It neither contradicts annotations nor provides substantial extra transparency.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the endpoint, and each clause serves a purpose. No redundant information or fluff. The structure clearly separates endpoint specification from argument passing rules.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. However, the description omits critical context like the required 'instanceID' path variable, possible query parameters (e.g., pagination), or how to obtain a valid instance ID. For a simple listing operation, it is minimally viable but not fully complete given the unconstrained schema and no examples.

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 defines a single flexible 'arguments' object with no property descriptions (coverage 0%). The description compensates by explaining the internal structure of 'arguments' (path variables, query params, body), which is essential for the agent to invoke the tool correctly. It does not enumerate specific fields like 'instanceID' or query options, but the high-level guidance significantly adds meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly identifies the resource and HTTP verb via the endpoint '/instances/{instanceID}/torrents/'. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like qui_list_cross_seed_runs. However, it focuses on the mechanics of the API call rather than explicitly stating the purpose ('list torrents for an instance'), though that is strongly implied by the endpoint and tool name.

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 invocation mechanics ('Pass path variables directly in arguments, query values in arguments.params...') but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or why one would choose this over similar list tools. The 'how' is present, but the 'when' is absent.

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