radarr_get_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the nature of the payload (health warnings/errors with concrete examples) and implies a non-destructive read, but says nothing about permissions, whether the check is cached/refreshed, or how empty health is represented.

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 sentences, purpose front-loaded, and the parenthetical examples add useful signal without padding. Nothing to trim.

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 the description still tells the agent the kind of information returned, which is sufficient for a zero-arg read tool. The only shortfall is the unresolved overlap with the get_system_status sibling.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to compensate for. No parameter meaning is missing.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get system health status') and clarifies what it surfaces (warnings/errors such as disk space or download client problems). It does not differentiate itself from the sibling radarr_get_system_status, so an agent must guess which of the two to call for instance-level status.

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 a diagnostic context but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. With radarr_get_system_status among the siblings, the absence of any disambiguation guidance is a real gap.

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