profilarr_status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the tool as a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying exactly what system information is returned, such as sync states and unread announcements, giving the agent a clear picture of the tool's scope without contradicting 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?

The description is a single, tightly packed sentence that lists all major status components without fluff. Every word contributes to conveying what the tool does, making it maximally efficient and easy to parse.

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 parameterless, read-only status aggregation tool, the description covers all key aspects: version, uptime, databases, arrs, job queue, backups, and announcements. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values, and no gaps are evident.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no semantic burden on the description. The baseline for parameterless tools is 4, and the description provides no unnecessary parameter explanations, which is appropriate.

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 'Get overall system status' and enumerates the specific components (version, uptime, databases, arrs, job queue, backups, unread announcements). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like profilarr_health or profilarr_list_announcements, which focus on individual aspects.

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 clear context by listing all the status areas covered, indicating this is a comprehensive overview tool. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the "overall" framing implies it should be used when a broad status snapshot is needed rather than individual list queries.

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