cleanuparr_get_arr_status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares a safe read operation. The description adds the scope 'all configured' connections, which is helpful context, but it does not describe return format or any other behavioral traits. Given the annotation, the description provides adequate but not rich transparency.

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, 7-word sentence conveys the entire purpose with no filler, repetition, or unnecessary details. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 check with an output schema, this description is complete. It explains exactly what the tool does, and the output schema handles return value documentation. No additional context is needed given the tool's simplicity.

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 description has nothing to add about parameter meaning. Per the rubric, the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and there is no gap to compensate.

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 ('Check') and clearly identifies the resource ('all configured Sonarr/Radarr/Lidarr-style connections'). It aligns with the tool name and distinguishes from sibling status tools by being ARR-specific, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other status/health tools like cleanuparr_health or cleanuparr_get_status. The description only states the action without any context, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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