dashbrr_get_nzbget_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that the tool reads NZBGet queue, status, and recent failures, plus the parameter format requirement. It does not contradict the annotations and adds useful behavioral context, though it doesn't mention potential caveats like pagination or failure handling (output schema may cover return structure).

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 two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the tool's scope, and the second delivers a critical parameter constraint. Every word contributes.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential data categories and the required parameter format. It doesn't elaborate on what 'recent failures' means or how the summary is composed, but given the low complexity and output schema, this is only a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining that instance_id must be type-prefixed and gives an example. It adds meaning beyond the bare string type, though it doesn't enumerate all valid prefixes or explain the underlying instance model.

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 resource (NZBGet) and the data it returns (queue, status, recent failures), which distinguishes it from sibling get_summary tools for other services. However, it is a noun phrase with no explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', relying on the tool name for the action.

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 essential guidance for the instance_id parameter (must be type-prefixed, e.g., nzbget-0), which directly aids correct invocation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or exclude any cases, so usage context is only implied.

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