cleanuparr_health_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds useful behavioral context by noting which operations are anonymous (e.g., 'anonymous liveness' at /health) and which are authenticated ('authenticated detailed health report'). However, it does not explicitly state that these are read-only or describe potential side effects, though health checks are inherently non-destructive.

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 a compact bullet list with front-loaded operation names and short, informative descriptions. Every line is purposeful, and the format makes the tool easy to scan.

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 an output schema (not shown) and a clear list of operations, the description adequately covers scope. It provides enough detail to understand each operation's purpose and arguments, and the output schema can handle return-value specifics.

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 0%, but the description compensates by listing each operation with its expected arguments (e.g., cleanuparr_run_health_check accepts check_id). The generic 'arguments' dict is clarified by the operation-specific signatures, providing meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 identifies the tool as handling 'cleanuparr health status operations' on Cleanuparr, with a specific list of operations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on cleaner config, jobs, events, stats, etc.

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?

The description implies usage by listing health-related operations and noting the resource (Cleanuparr). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to select this tool for health status checks.

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