get_recently_active

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 states what the tool does but doesn't explain key behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, how 'recently' is defined, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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: 'Get recently active torrents and IDs of recently removed ones.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resources, with no unnecessary words or redundancy, 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 complexity (simple read operation with no parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like what 'recently' means or how removals are tracked, which could be important for context. This results in a baseline score of 3.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, warranting a score of 4.

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's purpose: 'Get recently active torrents and IDs of recently removed ones.' It specifies the verb 'Get' and the resources 'recently active torrents' and 'IDs of recently removed ones.' However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'list_torrents' or 'get_torrent_details,' which prevents a score of 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. It doesn't mention scenarios like monitoring recent activity, checking for removals, or how it differs from other listing tools such as 'list_torrents.' This lack of explicit usage context results in a low score.

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