get_magnet_link

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.