tdarr_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. It does disclose the informational, non-mutating nature and precisely what is surfaced (paused nodes, workers, watching/processing libraries, global pause). It stops short of confirming read-only behavior, permission/auth needs, or error conditions, which is a gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the resource and then the reported fields. It is dense but every phrase earns its place by documenting return content that no output schema provides; no filler or repetition.

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 low-complexity, single-parameter inspection tool with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned data categories, which is exactly what the missing output schema would otherwise cover. It lacks only explicit read-only/permission framing, a minor gap at this complexity.

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?

Only one parameter (host) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains the host must come from the inventory having apps.tdarr. The description adds nothing new about the parameter's syntax or constraints, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the resource (Tdarr on a host) and enumerates the aspects reported: server version/uptime, nodes, libraries, global pause, statistics. The 'status' name plus this content makes the retrieval purpose unambiguous. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the tdarr_scan / tdarr_pause / tdarr_library_add siblings, relying on the reader to infer the read-only inspection role.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent can infer it is the 'check Tdarr state' tool, but nothing states when to prefer it over the sibling tdarr_* tools or what conditions warrant calling it.

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