arr_downloads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Show' implies a read-only listing and the filter states hint at stateful results, but there is no mention of pagination behavior, sort order, or how limit interacts with the filter. Because an output schema exists, return format need not be explained, which keeps this at a middling score rather than lower.

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?

Extremely terse and front-loaded: the purpose is in the first line and the filter vocabulary follows immediately. Nothing is padded, though the dangling enum list is slightly raw rather than integrated into a sentence.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the filter vocabulary is covered. What is missing for an agent to call this correctly is the semantics of limit and any hint of how this tool relates to arr_queue or arr_status.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does document the full set of filter values (all, downloading, seeding, completed, paused, active, stalled, errored) beyond what the bare string schema provides. However, the limit parameter (default 30) is entirely undocumented, leaving half the parameters without meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Show qBittorrent torrents'), and naming qBittorrent narrows it versus a generic download queue. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as arr_queue or arr_status, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative among the nine siblings. Usage is only implied by the list of filter states, which suggests checking torrent status, but nothing routes the agent between this and arr_queue.

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