verify_torrent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool verifies data integrity, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify whether it performs checksums, scans files, returns a report, or has side effects (e.g., logging). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unclear, though it is not misleading.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. This exemplifies optimal conciseness for a simple tool.

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 (verification operation), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, usage, and parameters. With the output schema present, it avoids needing to explain returns, but overall it is adequate with clear gaps.

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 description must compensate. It implies the parameter is a torrent identifier but does not specify format (e.g., hash, name) or constraints. Since schema coverage is low, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for adequate but incomplete parameter information.

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 'Verify torrent data integrity' clearly states the action (verify) and target (torrent data integrity), which is better than a tautology. However, it lacks specificity about what 'verify' entails (e.g., checksum validation, file completeness) and does not distinguish it from siblings like 'get_torrent_details' or 'get_torrent_stats', which might provide related information. This makes it vague but functional.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., after download, before deletion), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_torrent_details' for status checks. Without such context, users must infer usage, which is inadequate for effective tool selection.

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