dashbrr_get_bazarr_summary

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

ReadOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds content scope (badges, provider statuses, health issues) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond that. The instance_id type-prefix note is more parameter semantics than behavioral transparency. 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and immediately followed by the critical parameter format. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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 simple read-only summary tool with a single parameter and an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's scope and the parameter format. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. Minor gaps remain around the meaning of 'badges' and potential error conditions, but these are not critical.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides crucial syntax guidance for the single parameter: 'instance_id must be type-prefixed, e.g., bazarr-0'. This adds meaning beyond the bare string type. However, it does not explain why the prefix is needed or list possible prefixes, leaving some ambiguity.

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 specifies the resource (Bazarr) and the content categories (badges, subtitle provider statuses, health issues), making it clear this tool retrieves a Bazarr-specific summary. It distinguishes from siblings by naming Bazarr, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'.

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?

Usage context is implied by the tool name and description (use for Bazarr summary), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives or any notes on exclusions. The only additional instruction is about instance_id formatting, which is parameter guidance, not usage guidance.

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