cleanuparr_health_detailed

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Get' aligns with that, so there is no contradiction. The addition of 'authenticated' is a minor contextual cue, but beyond that, the description does not disclose response size, pagination, or side effects. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not enriching.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. It communicates the tool's purpose without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it an exemplar of concise structure.

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 tool with an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, the existence of multiple health-related sibling tools creates ambiguity about the term 'detailed.' The description does not clarify whether it returns a full report, a summary, or a subset of checks, leaving room for misinterpretation.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details. According to the rubric, 0 parameters warrants a baseline of 4, which is appropriate here.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Get') and the resource ('detailed health report'), which distinguishes it from the basic 'cleanuparr_health' sibling. However, it does not explicitly state what makes it 'detailed' or how it differs from other health-related tools, so it falls short of a full 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cleanuparr_health, cleanuparr_health_ready, or cleanuparr_health_checks. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without criteria for selection.

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