get_system_status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a non-mutating call. The description adds value by disclosing the specific content the agent can expect: version, install type, storage, and health status of core subsystems. It does not discuss auth or latency caveats, but for a read-only, parameterless status call the behavioral risk is minimal.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource ('Get Paperless server status') and follows with a compact list of returned fields. Every clause adds useful information with no redundancy.

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 that there are no parameters, no output schema, and only a readOnly annotation, the description is complete enough: it names the key response fields, the health components covered, and a concrete use case. An agent can invoke this tool correctly without needing additional context.

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 the schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameters; it instead explains what the response contains, which is the relevant semantic information here.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get Paperless server status', and enumerates exact fields returned (pngx_version, install type, storage, health of database, search index, classifier, task queue, last sanity check). The use-case sentence 'Use this to find out which Paperless version you are talking to' helps distinguish it from sibling read tools like get_statistics or task status tools.

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?

It gives a clear, explicit use case: find out which Paperless version you are talking to. It does not name alternative tools or provide 'when not to use' exclusions, but the context is unambiguous for this no-parameter status endpoint.

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