tdarr_auth_status

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'Check Tdarr Pro status' without indicating whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, or what side effects (e.g., network calls) occur. The boolean parameter 'saU' suggests a flag but its role is unclear from the description alone.

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 a single, short sentence that is concise and front-loaded. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices clarity. No unnecessary words, but it could benefit from slightly more detail without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the low complexity (one boolean parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about the tool's relationship to other status-checking siblings and does not clarify the purpose of the 'saU' parameter, which might be crucial for correct usage.

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 100% for the single parameter 'saU', which has a description ('Status check flag'). The tool's description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter name and schema. Thus, the description does not improve understanding of the parameter, resulting in a baseline score.

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 'Check Tdarr Pro status' clearly indicates the verb (check) and resource (Tdarr Pro status). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like tdarr_status or tdarr_is_server_alive, which may perform similar status checks. A more specific description would clarify that this tool checks licensing or subscription 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., tdarr_status for general server status, tdarr_auth_verify_token for authentication status). The description lacks context on prerequisites or conditions, such as whether a valid session is required.

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