add_torrent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action ('Add') but doesn't describe what happens after adding (e.g., starts downloading unless paused), potential side effects, or any constraints like rate limits or authentication needs. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely modifies system state.

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 single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists input sources without any wasted words. Every part earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the primary parameter's semantics but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, but overall completeness is limited.

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. It explains the 'torrent' parameter by listing valid sources (magnet link, HTTP URL, local file path), adding useful context beyond the schema's string type. However, it doesn't address 'download_dir' or 'paused', leaving two parameters undocumented. This partial compensation justifies a baseline score.

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 action ('Add a torrent') and specifies the input sources ('from magnet link, HTTP URL, or local file path'), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'download_torrent' or 'list_torrents'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'move_torrent' also involves torrents), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'download_torrent' or 'start_torrent', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It only states what the tool does, not when it's appropriate.

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