arr_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 explains what the tool does (fetches status and version) and what it's for (verifying reachability). It does not explicitly state side effects, but 'get' and the purpose strongly imply a read-only operation without destructive behavior.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every word adds value. No filler or 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?

For a simple parameterless status tool, the description is complete. It defines the tool's function and intended use case. No output schema exists, but describing 'connection status and version info' suffices for a basic status check. The sibling context reinforces its distinct role.

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 zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter details. The schema is empty, and the description correctly omits parameter information. No parameters means the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get connection status and version info for all configured *arr services.' This uses a specific verb ('get'), identifies the resource (connection status and version info), and scopes it to all *arr services, distinguishing it from sibling tools like sonarr_get_health or arr_search_all.

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 direct usage guidance: 'Use this to verify which services are running and reachable.' This gives a clear use case and implies when to select this tool over alternatives, though it doesn't explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives by name.

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