Health Check All

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the tool is read-only, whether it requires authentication, or any potential side effects. For a health check, it's likely non-destructive, but this is not confirmed.

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?

While the description is short, it is under-informative. It lacks crucial details about parameters and behavior, making it insufficient for an AI agent to use correctly. Every sentence should add value, but this single sentence is too vague.

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 (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the output looks like, how parameters affect the result, or define 'Servarr app'. The tool demands far more context.

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 description fails to explain any of the 10 parameters. Parameters like 'page', 'limit', 'cursor' suggest pagination, contradicting the idea of checking 'every' app. No parameter semantics are provided despite 0% schema description coverage.

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 action (check), resource (status and health), and scope (every configured Servarr app). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_health' which likely targets a single app.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_health' or 'test_all_indexers'. There is no mention of when not to use it or any context for selection.

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