cleanuparr_stats

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's operations are all get/list, aligning with this. The description adds value beyond the annotation by detailing the dispatcher pattern, parameter defaults, and special notes like 'episode_id is used for Sonarr episode history' and 'search_status can contain repeated enum filters.' No contradictions found.

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 structured as a scannable bulleted list, with each operation given a concise purpose and parameter list. It is long due to the number of sub-operations, but every line provides necessary information without fluff. The opening sentence effectively frames the dispatcher pattern.

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's complexity (7 sub-operations, many parameters) and that the schema provides no descriptions, the description covers all operations and their parameters, making the tool's interface quite clear. It does not explain return values, but the output schema likely covers that. Some parameter enums (e.g., search_status values) are not fully specified, but overall comprehensive.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by listing each operation's parameters and defaults in function-signature form, which adds meaning beyond the schema's generic 'arguments' object. It also highlights operation-specific behavior for certain parameters, though it does not enumerate all enum values.

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 this as a dispatcher for Cleanuparr stats operations, and enumerates each supported operation with a specific verb and resource (e.g., 'Get score history for an item', 'Get custom-format score tracking statistics'). This differentiates it from sibling tools focused on config, health, jobs, 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 provides clear usage instructions by explaining the operation/arguments pattern and listing each operation's signature with parameters and defaults. While it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternative tools, the context is clear that this is the stats/read-only dispatcher, so usage is well implied.

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