list_torrents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the base safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral nuance, especially the 'recently-active' semantics tied to the last such call, which is not inferable from annotations or schema.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a clear Args structure. Each sentence adds useful information with no filler or repetition.

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?

With two optional parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers all needed operational details: how to select torrents, how to control response size, and the special recently-active behavior. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters in plain language: what ids accept, the special 'recently-active' literal, the meaning of omission, and the purpose of fields. This is exactly the semantic information the schema lacks.

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 opening sentence, 'List torrents with their state, progress and speeds,' uses a specific verb and resource and clearly indicates a plural listing operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_torrent and list_torrent_fields without ambiguity.

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 gives clear context: omit ids for all torrents, supply specific ids or hashes for a subset, and use 'recently-active' for changed items. It also advises limiting fields for large libraries. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear enough.

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