sonarr_ping

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the authentication-verification aspect, which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotation. Simple but effective.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence conveys the purpose and usage without any waste. Every word earns its place.

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?

This is a minimal, zero-parameter utility tool. The description fully covers its function, and the presence of an output schema eliminates the need to describe return values. Nothing essential is missing.

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 no parameter explanation is necessary. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters to document.

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 the tool's action ('Ping the server') and its intended outcome ('verify it is reachable and authenticated'). It is specific and unambiguous, distinguishing it from the many content-management sibling tools.

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 phrase 'to verify it is reachable and authenticated' explicitly frames the use case as a connectivity/auth check, giving clear context for when to invoke it. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but for a zero-parameter health check this is sufficient.

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