radarr_get_health

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

The annotation readOnlyHint: true is present, so the description doesn't need to repeat that it's read-only. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation: it doesn't describe return format, whether it returns a list of issues, or if it performs any checks. Since the annotation covers the safety profile and the description doesn't mislead, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise: 'List health.' It is front-loaded and contains no filler. While simple, it is appropriate for a tool with no parameters. However, it could benefit from a bit more context about what 'health' includes, so it's not a 5.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, read-only, output schema exists), the description is minimally viable but not complete. It doesn't explain what 'health' refers to in the Radarr context, such as whether it lists health checks, errors, or system statuses. The output schema likely covers return values, but the description could add clarity about the resource being listed.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to describe. The input schema is empty and the description correctly says 'List health.' with no parameter details needed. This is ideal for a no-parameter tool, and the schema coverage is 100% by default.

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 'List health.' clearly states the verb and resource, indicating the tool lists health information. However, it does not differentiate itself from many sibling 'list' tools, and 'health' is a vague term that could refer to system health, health checks, or a specific health resource. It is not a tautology and is understandable, but lacks specific context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any conditions, prerequisites, or related tools that might be alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify whether this is the go-to tool for checking Radarr's system health status or if other tools like system_status should be used. This lack of usage context is a significant gap.

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