get_resource_stats

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently states the operation is a read-style stats retrieval, lists the returned metrics, and includes the exact endpoint. It does not state whether side effects are possible or mention auth requirements, but the 'Get' phrasing and stats-oriented content make the read-only nature clear.

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 sentence front-loads the core purpose, then provides a compact list of returned metrics and the endpoint. There is no redundancy or filler; every part of the description adds useful information.

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?

With no output schema, the description must document return values, and it does by naming process uptime, heap, CPU percentage, and memory used/total. Exact field names or units are not specified, but for a zero-parameter statistical snapshot this is nearly 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to supplement beyond the empty schema. The schema already fully covers this case, and the description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Get current Tdarr Server resource usage' and then enumerates the exact metrics returned (process uptime, heap, host CPU, memory). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_resource_history or get_server_time without needing to read schemas.

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 word 'current' establishes a clear point-in-time use case: the agent can choose this tool when it wants an immediate server resource snapshot. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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