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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that downloads may show 0% progress for 1-3 minutes and provides criteria for stuck/failed downloads, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't describe side effects like removed files or whether cancellation is reversible.

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 succinct and front-loaded with the core action, then uses bullets for conditions and a clear warning. Every line adds value, and the formatting improves readability.

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 simple mutation tool with minimal schema and no annotations, the description provides good usage criteria and warnings. However, it omits expected response/return value and any side effects, leaving some ambiguity for the agent. Still, the guidance is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 schema has a single required 'id' string with no description, and the description does not explain what the id refers to or how to obtain it (e.g., from list_downloads). It adds no meaning beyond the implicit understanding that id identifies the download.

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 uses a specific verb ('Abort') and resource ('in-progress download'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like download_status and download. It states exactly what the tool does in one line.

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 explicitly lists three conditions under which cancellation is appropriate and one strong 'do NOT' condition (progress being 0%). It references download_status as the prerequisite check, providing clear when-to-use guidance and exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It explains key fields and their implications (e.g., session_id changes invalidate download IDs, p2p_reachable false indicates likely download failures) and provides actionable advice for the agent.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the main verb and purpose. The bullet list of key fields is concise and every sentence provides essential information, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 there is no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return fields and their meanings. It also covers edge cases and what actions the agent should take based on the values, making the tool's behavior complete and actionable.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful semantics about the output fields, but there are no parameters to clarify, so it cannot exceed the baseline.

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 tool checks the MCP's Soulseek connection health, with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('Soulseek connection health'). It is distinct from sibling tools like search or download, as no other tool in the context covers connection health.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Call this at the start of every session and after any suspected restart.' This provides clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which would warrant a 5.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses that downloads are saved to a configured directory, that P2P connections are asynchronous, and that checking immediately will show 0%. It also reveals the response includes wait_before_poll_secs, which is beyond what any schema offers.

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 efficiently organized: a one-line purpose, a single sentence on file location, and a clear 'IMPORTANT' section with imperative guidance. Every sentence adds value, and the structure naturally front-loads the core action.

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 asynchronous nature and the lack of an output schema, the description covers the key expectations: directory, timing, and the wait_before_poll_secs field. It does not mention error handling or what happens with invalid ids, but for a simple download initiation tool it provides sufficient context for an agent to act.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), and the description does not explicitly define the 'id' parameter. It is inferable that the id identifies a file from a search result, but the description never states the source or format. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema detail, leaving a gap for the agent.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Download a file from a Soulseek peer.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like search, download_status, and cancel_download.

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 clear context on when to use the tool and crucially warns about waiting 30 seconds before polling download_status. It also instructs the agent to respect wait_before_poll_secs and avoid live-polling. It stops short of naming alternative tools, but the timing guidance is explicit and actionable.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: initial queued status is normal, age_seconds is the metric for cancellation decisions, the message field contains actionable instructions, and stale IDs require re-download. This goes beyond simple status retrieval and prevents misuse.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then structured into bullet-point rules. Every sentence offers actionable value, and the formatting makes scanning easy despite the length.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers the download-status lifecycle: when to poll, how to interpret queued status, when to cancel, how to use the message field, and what to do on stale IDs. It equips the agent with necessary edge-case handling.

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 schema has one required parameter 'id' with no description, and the description only indirectly references it as 'download ID' in the stale-ID rule. It does not explicitly define the parameter's meaning or source, though context implies it. With 0% schema coverage, this is a modest gap.

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 opens with 'Poll progress of an active or recent download,' using a specific verb (poll) and resource (download status). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like download, cancel_download, and list_downloads.

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?

Provides explicit CRITICAL TIMING RULES with when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, including not calling within 30 seconds, not cancelling on queued status, and following the message field's sleep recommendation. It also specifies actions for stale IDs, offering clear operational context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds 'no secrets' to set expectations about what will not be returned, and lists the contained configuration aspects. It does not explicitly mention side effects, but 'Return' implies a read-only operation, making it reasonably transparent.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by practical usage examples. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple no-argument config getter, the description covers the main purpose and key contents. It stops short of specifying the exact return format, but since there is no output schema, this is a minor gap; the examples suffice for most use cases.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description's enumeration of return contents adds context beyond the empty schema, making it clear what the tool provides even though no parameters are needed.

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 'Return the MCP's runtime configuration' with a specific verb and resource, and enumerates concrete items (download paths, ports, concurrency limits, username). This differentiates it from sibling tools like search or download.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this to check where files are being downloaded, which ports are configured, concurrency limits, and the connected username,' providing clear use cases. However, it does not name alternative tools or when not to use it, though no obvious overlap exists with siblings.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return contents: 'status, progress, age_seconds, username, connection_state, and local_path,' and notes each entry includes the download ID. It does not mention potential limits or permissions, but for a read-only list tool this is substantial behavioral context.

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 four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage scenario, return fields, and follow-up actions. It is front-loaded with the core function and avoids redundancy or fluff.

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?

No output schema is provided, but the description compensates by listing all return fields and explaining the recovery use case. It also tells the agent how to use the result (call download_status/cancel_download), making the tool's behavior and integration with siblings complete.

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 is empty, so there are zero parameters. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies, and the description does not need to explain parameters. It adds no param details, but none are required.

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 opens with 'List all active/queued/recent downloads in the current session,' a specific verb and resource that clearly defines the tool's scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like download_status and cancel_download by focusing on listing all tracked downloads rather than acting on a specific one.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use this to recover state after context compaction or session resume.' It also mentions alternatives by stating the download ID enables calling download_status or cancel_download on specific items, implicitly telling the agent when to use those instead.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. 'Check' implies a read-only operation, and the listed attributes (online status, speed, queue, free slots) give some insight into behavior. However, it does not disclose potential errors, auth requirements, or response format, which are ambiguous for a no-annotation tool.

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 directly states the tool's function and timing. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core query (what status aspects are checked) and context ('before downloading'). It lacks details on return values or edge cases, but given the low complexity, this is reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the 'username' parameter, adding no meaning beyond the schema's minimal 'Username' title. While the parameter is intuitive, the description fails to clarify its exact role (e.g., username of the peer to check).

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('a peer's online status, speed, queue, and free slots'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like download_status which relates to download state, not peer state. The scope is unambiguous.

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?

'Before downloading' provides clear temporal context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the sibling list makes the distinction from download_status implicit.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does so by noting that filters are 'applied post-search,' explaining that unknown bitrate files are kept for min_bitrate, and providing a default for max_queue_size (Soularr default: 50). These details go beyond a simple 'search' description.

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 concise paragraph with a bulleted list of filters. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the filter details are organized clearly using hyphens. No unnecessary words are present.

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?

Although the description and schema cover the parameters and purpose, there is no output schema, and the description does not describe the return value format, pagination, or what to expect in results. It also omits explanation of 'timeout' and 'max_results' parameters. Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters), these gaps leave some ambiguity.

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 schema has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantics of most filter parameters: extensions, min_bitrate, min_filesize/max_filesize, free_slots_only, max_queue_size, and min_speed. It does not mention query, timeout, or max_results, but these are relatively self-explanatory from their names and defaults.

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 opens with 'Search the Soulseek network for files,' clearly identifying the action (search) and the resource (files). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like download, get_config, and connection_health, which serve different purposes.

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 clear context for using this tool to search files, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternative tool references. However, the sibling tool names make the differentiation obvious, so usage context is clear.

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