list_torrent_fields

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that, but it does clarify the tool's relationship to list_torrents. There is no contradiction, and the description does not add significant behavioral traits, so a 3 is appropriate.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key information. It has no fluff and is perfectly sized; every word carries meaning. It is an excellent example of brevity combined with clarity.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with a simple purpose, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool returns (list of fields for list_torrents) and the annotations cover the safety profile. There is no missing information that an agent would need to use it correctly, especially given the output schema exists.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage (trivially). The description correctly indicates that no parameters are needed and that the output is a list of fields for list_torrents. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description fulfills this by helping the agent understand the output's purpose.

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 that the tool lists all fields that list_torrents can request, using a specific verb and resource. It is unambiguous and tells the agent exactly what to expect: a list of available fields. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_torrents, which it supports.

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 that this tool is used to discover the valid fields for list_torrents, which provides clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose is obvious, so the score is 4 rather than 5.

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