Get a put.io transfer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds the 'up-to-date' aspect and the download-progress use case, but does not disclose return format or potential caveats. With annotations covering safety, this is acceptable but not extensive.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and zero wasted words. It immediately communicates the tool's purpose and use case.

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 single-transfer read operation with annotations and a described parameter, the description is sufficient. It could mention what fields are returned, but the use case (progress) implies the payload. Given the tool's simplicity, it's adequately complete.

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 coverage is 100%; the transferId parameter has a clear description referencing where to obtain it. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states the tool fetches details for a single transfer, with a specific use case of checking download progress. This distinguishes it from siblings like putio_list_transfers, which lists all transfers.

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 implies use when needing up-to-date details for one specific transfer, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use. The 'single transfer' and 'up-to-date' wording provides clear context among sibling tools.

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