get_torrent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly signals a read-only retrieval operation and states the exact output (a magnet link) for a given torrent id. It does not mention error behavior or authorization requirements, but for a simple getter tool the core behavior is transparent enough.

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?

A single clean sentence with the verb and object front-loaded: 'Get the magnet link for a specific torrent by id.' There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail, and every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, one fully documented parameter, and the presence of an output schema, the definition is largely complete: an agent knows what action is performed, what input is required, where that input comes from, and what result to expect. The only slight gap is the absence of any explicit note about prerequisites or when not to use this tool.

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 100%; the single parameter torrent_id is already fully described, including its provenance from earlier search_torrents or popular_torrents calls. The description adds only the phrase 'by id', which provides no meaningful meaning beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the exact resource ('magnet link'), and scopes it to 'a specific torrent by id'. This makes it clearly distinct from the sibling search_torrents and popular_torrents tools, which serve to find or list torrents rather than retrieve a magnet link.

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 itself does not name alternatives, but the input schema provides strong context: torrent_id is described as 'returned by a previous search_torrents or popular_torrents call,' which tells an agent this is the follow-up retrieval step after a search or popular-list call. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or alternative routing, so it misses a 5.

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