get_system_status

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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, closed-world read-only operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations, specifically that it reports reachability and checks API keys, and that it should be used first during failure diagnosis.

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 description is brief, front-loaded and well structured: purpose first, usage guidance second, then concrete examples. Every sentence adds useful information with no waste.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, has an output schema, and has annotations covering safety, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. Return values need not be explained because an output 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for missing schema details.

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 names the resource and scope: version and reachability of every configured service, with examples naming Sonarr, Radarr and Prowlarr. It is specific enough to distinguish this from most sibling tools, but it does not explicitly contrast with close siblings such as get_health or test_download_clients.

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?

It gives clear usage context: use it first when something fails, to check connectivity and API keys. That is strong guidance for a troubleshooting starting point, but it does not name alternatives or conditions where another tool should be used instead.

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