jellyfin_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a rich picture of what the call surfaces (scan state, live streams with direct-play vs transcode, failed/running tasks). It stops short of stating the safety profile, permission needs, or cost/latency traits, but for a passive status read the disclosed output behavior is substantial.

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 dense, tightly front-loaded sentence that opens with the resource and then lists the reported categories; every clause maps to a distinct piece of output. The nested em-dash parenthetical is slightly awkward but not wasteful.

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?

With no output schema, the description effectively serves as the return-value contract and covers version, libraries, streams, counts, and tasks. For a read-only diagnostic of moderate complexity this is nearly complete, missing only explicitly stated limits or guarantees.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'host' parameter is already documented in the schema (host from inventory with apps.jellyfin/apps.tdarr). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource ('Jellyfin on a host') and enumerates exactly what is reported: version, libraries, active streams, item counts, tasks. This clearly separates it from action siblings like jellyfin_scan and jellyfin_task_run, though it never names alternatives explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the read-only 'status' framing (check the state of Jellyfin on a host), but there is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisite, or when-to-prefer-a-sibling guidance despite many closely related tools in the list.

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