Get System Status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the basic purpose and fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or whether the endpoint is a simple fetch or a list with cursor support. The many parameters are unexplained.

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 very concise (one sentence), but it is too short to be informative. While it front-loads the purpose, it omits critical details, making it insufficient.

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 complexity (11 parameters, pagination fields, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the input schema's richness or what the output contains.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to any parameter. The only parameter hinted at is 'app', but the other 10 parameters (to, from, page, limit, etc.) remain completely unexplained.

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 'Return Servarr system status for one configured app', which specifies a verb and resource. However, it is vague about what 'system status' includes and the many parameters (pagination fields) suggest it might be a list endpoint rather than a simple status check, causing 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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_health' or 'get_disk_space', nor does it specify when to use this tool over others.

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