prowlarr_test_indexer

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that the tool has a 'benign side effect' and requires no confirmation. It also explains behavior for unknown IDs. However, it does not elaborate on whether the tool is read-only or has other mutation effects.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded, but slightly lacks structure. It effectively conveys the tool's purpose and behavior without unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers basic behavior and return format, with the output schema presumably detailing the structure. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., indexer existence) and does not mention authentication or rate limits, leaving some gaps for a simple diagnostic tool.

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 description only references indexer_id in the error handling context without explaining its purpose, source, or valid values. Given 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter meaning.

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 action 'Test connectivity' and the target 'single indexer', explicitly distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'prowlarr_test_all_indexers'. It also specifies the return type: pass/fail plus messages.

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 use for testing a single indexer, contrasting with testing all. It provides error handling advice ('Unknown indexer_id -> clear message') but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations.

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