tdarr_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the contents of the payload (nodes, workers, state counts), which tells the agent this is a read-only observation call. It does not state whether the call is expensive/slow, whether it hits a live server, or how the aggregate is scoped.

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?

Two short lines, front-loaded with the outcome and then the one parameter, with zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the single optional parameter is documented. For a simple read-only summary tool the description is nearly complete; only a note on read-only nature or cost would add value.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'show_failed' is explained as a count of failed file names to list, plus a hard range of 0 to 50. The only gap is that the schema's default of 10 is not restated.

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?

Specific verb ('Show') plus an enumerated payload: nodes, workers, and per-state file counts. An agent immediately knows this is a Tdarr status snapshot. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling tool, which keeps it out of the top band.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'Show' — the description never states when to reach for this versus other tools, nor any prerequisites. Because no other Tdarr tool appears among the siblings, there is little ambiguity to resolve, but the guidance is still inferential rather than stated.

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