radarr_test_all_indexer

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

The description explicitly labels the operation as 'WRITE' and states 'this modifies your Radarr instance', adding valuable context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It also notes 'Returns validation results'. This is transparent about the side effect, though it could elaborate on what 'testing' entails (e.g., network requests to indexers).

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, using one sentence for the action and one for the warning. It is front-loaded with the purpose, and every word contributes value. No filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the behavior is partly explained by the annotations and the 'WRITE' warning. However, the description lacks context about what 'testall' actually does (e.g., triggers connectivity tests to all configured indexers), potential side effects beyond 'modifies instance' (like generating alerts), or when it is appropriate to run. It is marginally adequate but not rich.

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 properties, yet the description mentions an optional 'force_test' parameter. This is misleading because the schema does not define any parameter, so an agent might try to pass a parameter that is not accepted. With 0 params, the baseline could be 4, but the description's mention of a non-existent parameter reduces clarity and trust.

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 states the tool 'Test testall' and returns validation results. The name includes 'all_indexer', making it clear this tests all indexers, distinguishing it from radarr_test_indexer. However, 'testall' is not explicitly linked to 'indexers' in the description itself, so it is clear but not maximally explicit.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like radarr_test_indexer or radarr_test_all_downloadclient. It does not mention prerequisites, such as having configured indexers, or exclusions (e.g., 'use radarr_test_indexer for a single indexer'). Thus, usage context is absent.

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