get_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that this is a GET request, what response fields to expect, and adds the diagnostic role of a connectivity/API-key check. The main gap is not explicitly stating error or unauthorized-access behavior, but the API-key check phrasing implies it.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words; the core purpose and returned fields are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the practical diagnostic use case. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it lists the return fields, gives the endpoint, and explains how to use the call as a first diagnostic step. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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, so the schema has nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description appropriately doesn't include parameter information because none 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?

States a specific action and resource: 'Get Tdarr Server status' and enumerates the exact fields returned (version, build date, uptime, OS, server engine), plus the GET endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling status tools like get_db_statuses or get_scanner_status.

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?

Explicitly says to call this first when something looks wrong, positioning it as a connectivity/API-key check. This gives a clear decision rule for when to use it, though it does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it.

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