check_paths

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine scope detail beyond the annotations by enumerating the inspected surfaces (folder accessibility, free space, path mappings, download-client output visibility) and the fact that it surfaces related health warnings. No auth or rate-limit notes, but the read-only diagnostic nature makes those low-stakes.

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 core sentence is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and the concrete failure mode ('breaks most imports'), followed by a terse list and useful examples. Every element earns its place; the structure is efficient though the list-plus-examples arrangement runs slightly long.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. For a one-optional-param, read-only diagnostic, the description covers what is checked and the typical user questions, which is sufficient for correct invocation. The only minor gap is not clarifying its relationship to sibling diagnostics like test_download_clients.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'service' parameter is fully documented in the schema itself ('sonarr' or 'radarr'; omit to query both). The description's phrasing 'whether Sonarr/Radarr can actually see...' only loosely implies the both-services default and adds no syntax or format value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 names a specific verb ('Check') and a well-scoped resource ('the path setup') and enumerates exactly what it inspects: root folders, remote path mappings, download clients, and cross-service folder visibility. This distinguishes it from neighbors like test_download_clients, diagnose_import, and get_health, which the agent can rule out without opening any schema.

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?

Two concrete example questions ('Is my remote path mapping right?', 'Why does Sonarr say the path does not exist?') give clear situational triggers for when to reach for this tool. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when NOT to use it (e.g., versus test_download_clients), so it is strong but not fully explicit routing.

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