check_indexer_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently states the actions: audits, flags failures/bans, and reports system health warnings. This conveys a read-only monitoring operation and makes side effects (or lack thereof) reasonably clear. No contradiction exists.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that leads with the action verb 'Audits' and packs all relevant details without redundancy. Every word earns its place; there is no 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 no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it reports. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the result. No gaps that would hinder correct usage.

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 (100% coverage). The description adds meaning by explaining the tool's purpose, but since there are no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing more is 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 states a specific verb ('Audits'), a specific resource ('Usenet indexers and torrent trackers configured in Prowlarr'), and a precise outcome (flag connection failures/bans, report health warnings). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_cluster_infrastructure_health, which targets a broader infrastructure scope.

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: this tool is for auditing indexer/tracker connectivity in Prowlarr. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, but the context is specific enough that an agent can infer when to use it. Lacks the explicit routing that a 5 would require.

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