get_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that this is a read-only listing operation and explains the meaning of an empty result. It omits auth or rate-limit details, but those are less critical for a zero-parameter status endpoint.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and sope, the second gives the key interpretation rule, keeping the most important information front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter health check, the description is complete: it explains what is returned, that each item has a wiki link, and how to interpret an empty response. There is no output schema, so the description appropriately covers the return semantics.

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 has full description coverage of an empty object. There is no parameter behavior to document, so the baseline for zero parameters applies and the description satisfies it.

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 and resource: it lists active health check warnings and errors, and even adds the useful detail that each item includes a wiki link. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_system_status or get_disk_space.

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 clearly describes its purpose and gives an interpretative rule for the response: an empty result means Radarr is healthy. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but for a health-check tool the 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.