cleanuparr_run_health_check

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is potentially destructive. The description adds the scoping (all or one) but doesn't disclose additional behavioral details such as side effects or return format. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and clearly explains the parameter's effect. No wasted words; every part 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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema, so the description's brevity is acceptable. It explains the core behavior and parameter meaning, but doesn't mention what happens on execution (e.g., returns results or triggers background work). Overall sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 schema only defines 'check_id' as a nullable string with default null. The description adds crucial meaning: it is a GUID used to run a specific check. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, though it doesn't explain additional constraints.

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 states the action ('Run') and resource ('health checks'), with explicit scope: all checks or one by GUID. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'cleanuparr_health' or 'cleanuparr_health_checks' which likely report status rather than execute checks.

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 gives a clear context for use: use this tool to run health checks, optionally targeting a specific check by GUID. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous for a health-check execution tool.

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