get_torrent_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it 'Get detailed info', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID/hash is invalid), performance aspects (e.g., response time or data size), or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 ('Get detailed info') and specifies the key constraint ('by its ID or hash'). There's no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is somewhat complete. However, with no annotations and minimal parameter guidance, it lacks details on usage context and behavioral transparency, making it adequate but with clear gaps for effective agent use.

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 'torrent_id' can be an 'ID or hash', which clarifies the parameter beyond the schema's generic string type. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, this is minimal compensation. The baseline is 3 because the description provides some context, but it doesn't detail format constraints or examples.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed info for a specific torrent', specifying it's by 'ID or hash'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_torrents' (which lists multiple) and 'get_torrent_stats' (which might focus on statistics rather than general details). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, such as 'get_recently_active', which might also provide details for active torrents.

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 when to choose this over 'list_torrents' for bulk info, 'get_torrent_stats' for statistical data, or 'get_recently_active' for active torrent details. There's no context on prerequisites, such as needing a valid torrent ID/hash from another operation.

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