seerr_list_status

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a 'Get' operation, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation. The parameter check_update_available suggests the tool can check for updates, yet the description does not disclose this behavior or explain what 'status' encompasses (e.g., version, health, uptime). No contradiction, but minimal value added.

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 concise (one sentence, four words) and front-loaded with the verb, with no fluff. However, the extreme brevity leaves out essential information about the parameter and use context. It is appropriately sized for an ultra-simple tool, but it does not fully earn its place because it fails to clarify what 'status' means or how the parameter works.

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?

Despite the tool's apparent simplicity (one optional boolean, no required parameters, output schema present), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the check_update_available parameter, which is the only way to customize the call. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the semantics and selection criteria are missing, making this insufficient for a complete tool description.

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 describes a single optional boolean parameter check_update_available with default null, but the schema has zero description coverage. The description 'Get Seerr status' gives no hint about what this parameter controls, how it affects the request, or its allowed values. The description completely fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Get Seerr status' specifies a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('Seerr status'), but the term 'status' is vague and does not distinguish this from sibling tools like seerr_list_status_appdata or the many settings list tools. An agent may not know if this returns server health, version info, or update availability.

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 does not mention seerr_list_status_appdata or any other relevant sibling, nor does it give any context about when checking status is appropriate. There is no explicit or implied usage scenario beyond the tautological 'get status'.

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