get_health_summary

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety properties. It adds a little context with the list of returned aggregates, but no extra behavioral disclosures such as auth or failure modes.

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?

One compact sentence with a strong verb and a clear list of result categories. No redundant qualifiers or filler.

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 health summary with an output schema and full annotations, the description covers everything needed to invoke it. It does not need to elaborate on return layout since the schema exists.

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?

There are zero parameters, so no parameter documentation is required; the schema coverage is effectively complete. The description's mention of returned fields avoids any need to compensate for parameter gaps.

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 opens with 'Return' and names versions, transfer speeds, task state counts, and a problem summary, making the resource and scope clear. The system-level content clearly separates it from torrent-scoped siblings like list_torrents and analyze_largest_torrents.

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?

No when-to-use or alternative-selection guidance is given. The description only states what is returned; it does not say when to prefer get_health_summary over get_torrent_details or list_problem_torrents.

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