cleanuparr_get_download_client_status

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

The description adds the 'all configured' scope and the 'check' action, which aligns with the readOnlyHint=true annotation. However, it does not disclose what exactly a 'connection check' entails (e.g., health, reachability, credentials) or whether output provides per-connection details. Since the annotation already declares safety, the description contributes only marginally beyond 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?

A single sentence of six words, fully front-loaded, with no filler. Every word is meaningful: 'Check' implies a read-only inspection, 'all configured' specifies the scope, and 'download-client connections' names the resource. 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?

Given the tool has no parameters, a readOnlyHint, and an output schema, the description is adequate for a simple status-check tool. It might benefit from clarifying that it returns the health/status of each connection, but the tool name and presence of an output schema cover this. It is complete enough for the 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?

There are 0 parameters, so the description does not need to elaborate on parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because the description is clear about the scope (all configured connections) without needing to touch on inputs. No parameter documentation gap exists.

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 'Check all configured download-client connections' clearly states a specific action (check) on a specific resource (all configured download-client connections). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'list_download_clients' (which enumerates clients) and 'test_download_client' (which tests a specific client), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 description implies a simple status-check use case but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'test_download_client' or 'health_checks'). No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so the context is minimal and relies on the tool name for differentiation.

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