Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• download_torrent_fileC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Download the torrent file' without clarifying if the file is returned directly, saved to disk, or requires authentication. The output_dir parameter suggests saving to a directory, but the description omits this behavior.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single sentence with no waste, making it highly concise. However, it could be improved by briefly mentioning the optional output_dir parameter to aid agent understanding without adding much length.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool has 2 parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description should provide enough context for correct invocation. It omits any mention of output_dir, does not explain the output schema, and lacks behavioral detail, resulting in significant gaps.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema: it mentions 'by id' matching torrent_id, but does not explain output_dir or its default behavior. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('Download the torrent file') and the resource ('for a specific torrent by id'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_magnet_link and get_torrent. However, it lacks explicit differentiation or scope details, so it is slightly below a perfect score.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  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 its siblings (e.g., get_magnet_link, get_torrent). It does not mention prerequisites, context, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the action alone.

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

• get_torrentC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided so description carries full burden, but it does not disclose behavior such as error handling, read-only nature, or authentication needs. Only states it returns either magnet link or file path.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Single sentence, efficient and front-loaded with the action and resource. However, lacks detail required for completeness.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Minimal information given the output schema exists but not described, and no annotation coverage. Agent would need to infer return type from output schema.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0% and description only adds 'by id', which provides no detail on format or constraints of torrent_id parameter.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Uses specific verb 'get' and resource 'specific torrent', distinguishes from siblings like download_torrent_file and get_magnet_link by indicating this tool returns either a magnet link or file path.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No explicit guidance on when to use or avoid this tool vs alternatives. Sibling tools are listed but not referenced in the description.

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

• get_magnet_linkB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only says 'get the magnet link'. It does not disclose behavior like error handling (e.g., invalid torrent ID) or permissions. A read operation is implied but not explicit.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  One sentence, no wasted words. Perfectly concise for a simple tool.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Output schema exists but contents are unknown. Description does not mention what the magnet link looks like or any prerequisites. Adequate for a trivial tool but could add format hints.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no semantic detail beyond 'by id'. It does not explain that torrent_id should be a numeric ID or where to find it.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Clearly states the action (get), resource (magnet link for a specific torrent), and method (by id). Distinguishes from sibling tools like download_torrent_file or get_torrent.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is implied: when you need a magnet link for a torrent. Could benefit from mentioning that the torrent must exist or that this is for retrieving the link, not downloading.

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

• search_torrentsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses key behaviors: searching multiple providers, query construction rules, ranking criteria (quality, efficiency, health, size), and response format (top 3 with reasons). It also specifies handling of poor results. However, it omits details like provider names, auth needs, or potential rate limits.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is lengthy but well-structured into sections (arguments, query rules, ranking, response). Every sentence adds value, though some repetition exists (e.g., 'top 3 results maximum' could be merged). It is appropriately front-loaded with purpose and argument details.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description need not detail return values, but it does specify response format (top 3 with filename, size, seeds, etc.). It covers arguments, processing logic, and expectations. Missing are error handling and edge cases (e.g., empty results beyond 'poor results' keyword suggestion). Still, it is largely complete for typical use.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate fully. It provides extensive, prescriptive guidance for user_intent and query, including case, formatting, and content rules. For max_items, it contradicts the default of 10 by stating 'top 3 maximum', adding semantic constraint. This adds far more meaning than the raw schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The first sentence clearly states the tool performs an advanced torrent search across multiple providers, which is a specific verb-resource pair. The sibling tools (download_torrent_file, get_magnet_link, get_torrent) indicate this is the search entry point, making it distinguishable.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides extensive guidance on how to use the arguments and interpret results (query construction, ranking criteria), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or provide when-not-to-use scenarios. Usage is implied but lacks direct alternatives comparison.

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