sonarr_get_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns warnings/problems, which is useful. However, it does not mention any potential side effects (though a read-only get operation implies none) or return format nuances, such as whether an empty list is returned when healthy. It adds some behavioral context but not rich detail.

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 consists of two short sentences—20 words total—and immediately states the action and resource. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately concise for a simple read tool.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is responsible for conveying what the tool returns. The statement 'Shows any problems the application has detected' covers the output concept adequately. For a zero-parameter health check, this is sufficiently complete, though it could have mentioned that it returns a list of warnings with severity/message details.

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 and the schema covers 100% of them (none). Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details. The absence of parameters is implicitly clear from the schema, and the description adds no extra meaning, which is acceptable 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('health check warnings' from Sonarr). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on health checks, and the clarification 'Shows any problems the application has detected' reinforces its unique role.

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 usage context—when you want to see application health warnings—but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like arr_status or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The usage is clear but not explicitly differentiated from sibling tools.

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