dashbrr_get_autobrr_irc

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context by specifying instance_id type-prefix requirements and the exact health fields returned, which go beyond the annotation.

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 concise sentences front-load the purpose and pack in the essential parameter guidance. Every word earns its place; no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 low complexity (one parameter, read-only) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately captures purpose, key usage constraint, and return fields. No additional context is needed for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining the only parameter (instance_id) and providing a concrete example of the required type-prefix format. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's bare string type.

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 specifies the resource (autobrr IRC networks) and the returned health fields (name/healthy/enabled), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_autobrr_releases. It lacks an explicit verb, but the tool name includes 'get' and the meaning is 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 usage for checking IRC network health but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It does provide a key usage constraint (instance_id must be type-prefixed), which is partially a usage guideline.

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