tdarr_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It merely restates the name and does not disclose behavioral traits such as the type of status returned (e.g., health, uptime, version), idempotency, or side effects. The agent learns nothing beyond what the name implies.

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, efficient sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded and to the point, though it may be slightly underspecified for a status check 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete but insufficient. It does not hint at the response format or expected output types, which are critical for the agent to parse results correctly.

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?

There are no parameters, so the input schema is fully covered (100%). Per the rubric, zero parameters yield a baseline of 4. The description adds no param info, but none is needed.

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 server status' clearly states the tool's verb (check) and resource (server status). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like tdarr_is_server_alive, tdarr_get_server_log, or tdarr_performance_stats, which also check server 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 is given on when to use this tool versus the many other status-checking sibling tools. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent without decision support.

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