dashbrr_get_sonarr_stats

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares a safe read operation. The description adds that stats are 'queue-derived' and includes server version, providing some context about the data source. It also discloses the instance_id type-prefix constraint. However, it does not go further to describe failure modes, rate limits, or other behavioral nuances, which is acceptable given the simple read-only nature.

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 sentences, each with a clear purpose: the first specifies the output, the second provides a required parameter format. No unnecessary words or redundancy. This is a model of concise, front-loaded documentation.

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, output schema present), the description is complete. It covers the non-obvious instance_id format and the output composition. The existence of an output schema means the return values are already documented, so the description need not repeat them.

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 provides no description for instance_id (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so by explicitly stating that instance_id must be type-prefixed and giving the example 'sonarr-1'. This is essential, actionable information that the schema lacks, making the parameter semantics clear.

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 that the tool returns Sonarr queue-derived stats plus server version, specifying the output shape as {stats, version}. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dashbrr_get_sonarr_queue, which focuses on the raw queue. The purpose is immediately evident despite lacking an explicit verb, as the tool name includes 'get'.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention sibling tools or exclusions, and the only usage hint is the instance_id format requirement, which is more about parameter semantics than tool selection. An agent must infer usage from the tool name and output description.

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