tdarr_get_res_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation but discloses no further behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, real-time vs cached data, or any side effects. Minimal transparency.

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 extremely concise (4 words). While this reduces verbosity, it also leaves out potentially helpful context that could aid an agent in understanding scope or differentiation. It is not wasteful but misses an opportunity.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and parameters, the description is the sole source of context. It does not explain the return value, whether the information is current or historical, or any other details. For a simple read tool, it might suffice, but among many siblings it feels incomplete.

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 add parameter-level meaning. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adequately states what the tool gets without needing parameter details.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'server resource information'. It is specific enough, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the similar sibling 'tdarr_stats_get_res_hist' which retrieves historical resource stats. Still, it conveys the core purpose.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tdarr_stats_get_res_hist' or 'tdarr_get_process_info'. There is no mention of context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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