qui_torznab

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

No annotations are provided, and the description gives no information about side effects, permissions, rate limits, or other behavioral aspects. Operations like 'create', 'delete', and 'update' are clearly mutating, but the description does not disclose any potential consequences (e.g., irreversible changes, authentication requirements, or resource impacts). This leaves the agent uninformed about the tool's behavior.

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 list of operations with HTTP methods and paths, which is informative but repetitive (e.g., every operation starts with 'qui_'). The introductory sentence is ambiguous ('qui torznab operations on qui') and adds little value. While the list is fairly structured, the overall presentation could be more concise and clearer, but it is not excessively verbose.

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 tool with 20 distinct operations, varying HTTP methods, and a complex arguments object, the description is extremely incomplete. It does not explain the output schema, error handling, authentication, or any domain-specific details. The tool appears to be a comprehensive Torznab client, yet the description provides almost no context to help an agent use it effectively. This is a critical gap in completeness.

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 only defines two parameters: 'operation' (an enum) and 'arguments' (an object). The description explains that arguments can contain path variables, query parameters, and a request body, which provides some semantics. However, it does not detail what specific fields each operation requires in the arguments object, nor does it clarify the structure or types of these nested parameters. Parameter semantics are therefore insufficient for an agent to construct valid calls.

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 is extremely vague, stating only 'qui torznab operations on qui.' While the list of operations (create, delete, get, search, etc.) implies a Torznab API client, it does not explicitly define the tool's overall purpose or what Torznab is. This lack of a clear, high-level purpose makes it difficult for an agent to understand when to use this tool.

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 a generic calling convention: 'Pass operation and an arguments object; path variables go directly in arguments, query values in arguments.params, and a JSON request body in arguments.body.' This explains the structure of arguments but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools (e.g., qui_system, qui_cross_seed). There is no indication of which operations are appropriate for specific scenarios, making usage guidance incomplete.

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