get_torrent_stats

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 the tool is for getting stats and status, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or cached data, or what happens if the torrent ID is invalid. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond its basic purpose.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and parameter usage without any redundant information. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 likely defines the return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics adequately, though it lacks behavioral details that would be helpful in the absence of annotations.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic information. The description adds value by clarifying that 'torrent_id' can be an 'ID or hash', which helps the agent understand the parameter's expected format. However, it doesn't explain what constitutes a valid ID or hash, leaving some ambiguity.

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 ('Get stats and status') and target resource ('for a specific torrent'), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_torrents (which lists multiple) or get_torrent_details (which might provide different information). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_torrent_details, leaving some ambiguity about the scope of 'stats and status' versus 'details'.

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 implies usage by specifying 'by its ID or hash', suggesting it's for retrieving information about a known torrent, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like get_torrent_details or list_torrents. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and sibling list.

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