nzbget_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'status' includes (e.g., uptime, queue state). This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get current NZBGet server status'), making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details (e.g., response format, error handling). For a simple status-check tool, this is adequate but leaves gaps that could hinder effective use by an 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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools. No additional value is required beyond stating the purpose.

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 the verb ('Get') and resource ('current NZBGet server status'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'nzbget_version' or 'nzbget_log' by focusing on server status rather than version info or logs. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'nzbget_server_volumes' might also relate to server status), so it's not a perfect 5.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing (e.g., after certain events), or comparisons to siblings like 'nzbget_version' for version info or 'nzbget_log' for logs. This leaves the agent with minimal context for selection.

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