sonarr_get_health

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

The description indicates it is a read-only operation that returns detected problems. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose potential edge cases (e.g., empty response) or whether it requires specific permissions. It adds basic context but lacks depth.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word is meaningful and there is no redundancy.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the minimum necessary to understand the tool's purpose. It could be improved by describing the return format (e.g., list of issue objects) or noting that it may return an empty array. However, for a simple health check, it is adequate.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters but adds no additional value beyond the schema. According to the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it retrieves health check warnings and issues from Sonarr for TV. It uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (health check warnings and issues), and distinguishes itself from other get_health tools for different services like Lidarr or Radarr.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to check Sonarr health versus checking application status with arr_status. It merely states what it does without context for selection.

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