nzbget_server_volumes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify details like response format, potential errors, or whether it requires authentication. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 single, clear sentence: 'Get download statistics per server.' It is front-loaded, efficient, and wastes no words, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly without extraneous details.

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 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks context on output format, error handling, or differentiation from siblings. For a simple read operation, this might be adequate, but it doesn't fully compensate for the missing structured data, leaving room for improvement in guiding the agent.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, but it could have mentioned if any implicit parameters (like server selection) are involved. Since there are no parameters, a baseline of 4 is applied, as the description adequately covers the tool's function without unnecessary param info.

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 'Get download statistics per server' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('download statistics per server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'nzbget_status' or 'nzbget_history', which might also provide statistical information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'nzbget_status' and 'nzbget_history' that might overlap in providing statistical data, there's no indication of specific contexts, exclusions, or comparisons, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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