Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_torrentsC
  2.1/5.0
  Behavior1/5

  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 only states the action ('Search') without any information about rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not described), or what the search returns. This is inadequate for a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic search tool, though this brevity contributes to the lack of detail in other dimensions.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness1/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity (6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the search scope, result format, behavioral traits, or parameter usage, making it inadequate for an AI agent to use the tool effectively.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters like 'categories', 'order_by', 'limit', 'page', and 'per_page' are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what these parameters do, their formats, or examples. For a tool with 6 parameters, this is a significant gap.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states the basic action ('Search for torrent files') which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what kind of search (e.g., across which platforms, with what criteria) or how it differs from sibling tools like 'get_torrent_details'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity and differentiation.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  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 'download_torrent_file' or 'get_torrent_details'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

• download_torrent_fileC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Download' which implies a write operation to local storage, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like file overwriting, permissions needed, network usage, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves I/O and external resources.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the simple action described, making it easy to parse quickly.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the tool does beyond the basic action, such as return values, error cases, or how it interacts with siblings. For a download operation, this leaves too much unspecified.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds no meaning beyond the tool name; it doesn't explain what 'torrent_id' or 'output_dir' represent, their formats, or constraints. For 2 undocumented parameters, this is inadequate compensation.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states the action ('Download') and resource ('the torrent file'), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'get_magnet_link' or 'get_torrent_details', which might also involve torrent file access. The purpose is understandable but lacks differentiation.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  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 like 'get_magnet_link' for magnet links or 'get_torrent_details' for metadata. There's no mention of prerequisites, such as needing a valid torrent ID or output directory, or any context for selection among siblings.

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

• get_torrent_detailsC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't cover aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what details are included in the response. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, straightforward sentence with no unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for a tool with 2 parameters. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, how to interpret the torrent ID, or the implications of the boolean parameter. For a tool that likely returns structured data, more context is needed.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'specific torrent' which hints at the 'torrent_id' parameter, but doesn't explain what this ID is or how to obtain it. It also doesn't address the 'with_magnet_link' parameter at all, leaving its purpose unclear.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('details about a specific torrent'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_magnet_link' or 'search_torrents', which might also retrieve torrent information in different ways.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  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 like 'get_magnet_link' or 'search_torrents'. It doesn't specify prerequisites, such as needing a torrent ID, or clarify use cases like retrieving metadata versus links.

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

• get_magnet_linkC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 'Get[s] the magnet link', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as error conditions, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the torrent_id is invalid. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe and effective use.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every word earns its place in conveying the core functionality.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's complexity (a read operation with one parameter) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, parameter semantics, or return values, leaving significant gaps for the agent. The description alone is insufficient for reliable tool invocation without additional context.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It doesn't explain what 'torrent_id' represents, its format, or where to obtain it. With one parameter and low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, but since there's only one parameter, the baseline is adjusted to 3 as the simplicity reduces the need for extensive param info.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  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 'magnet link for a specific torrent', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'download_torrent_file' (which downloads a file) and 'get_torrent_details' (which provides broader details), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The description is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  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 like 'get_torrent_details' or 'download_torrent_file'. It implies usage for retrieving magnet links but offers no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over others. This leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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