download_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 ('Download') but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., file storage, network usage), error handling, or response behavior. This is inadequate for a tool that likely involves file operations and network activity.

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 functionality without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying the action and input types, 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 (involving downloads from multiple sources), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter intent but lacks behavioral details and usage guidance, leaving gaps that the output schema may partially address.

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?

The description adds meaning by specifying that the parameter accepts 'a magnet link, HTTP URL, or local file', which clarifies the input beyond the schema's generic string type. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this provides basic but incomplete context (e.g., no format examples or constraints), meeting the baseline for minimal compensation.

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 ('Download a torrent') and specifies the resource types ('from a magnet link, HTTP URL, or local file'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_torrent' or 'start_torrent', which might have overlapping functionality in torrent management.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_torrent' or 'start_torrent', which are listed as siblings. The description only states what the tool does without indicating context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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