sonarr_get_system_status

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

No annotations are present, but the description does disclose the returned content set (version, OS, runtime, database type, migration version), which is real behavioral information. It omits anything about auth/API-key requirements, caching, or whether the call is expensive, so the full burden is not met — but for a zero-parameter read-only status probe the remaining disclosure need is modest.

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 sentences, both earning their place: the first states the purpose, the second enumerates the return contents. Purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 correctly compensates by listing what the response contains, and with zero parameters there is no input surface to document. The only gap is that it never positions the tool relative to sonarr_get_health, which is the one thing an agent could get wrong here.

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 rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter surface for the description to clarify and nothing is left ambiguous on the input side.

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?

Uses a specific verb and resource ('Get system status information') and further enumerates exactly what the payload contains (version, OS, .NET version, database type, migration version). This makes the tool's scope concrete. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling sonarr_get_health, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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 never says when to reach for this tool, when not to, or how it relates to the similar diagnostics tool sonarr_get_health. The only implicit guidance is the word 'Get', which tells the agent nothing about context or prerequisites.

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