arr_stack

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declared, the description adds the return envelope ({success, data, message}) and an example call. It clearly indicates a query-only operation and does not contradict the annotation.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and the Return Format/Example sections are useful. The PORTMANTEAU PATTERN RATIONALE is not essential for operation, but the overall description is compact and clearly structured.

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?

For a simple one-parameter status query with a readOnly annotation, the description provides sufficient operating context via the return format and example. It does not detail the data payload fields, but the use case is straightforward and no output schema exists.

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% and the only parameter is a const 'status' with a description. The description adds an example with operation='status' but no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Query Radarr, Sonarr, and Lidarr HTTP APIs for media stack health,' providing a specific verb, concrete resources, and clear scope. It also distinguishes itself from the Plex-focused sibling tools.

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 purpose implies use for checking ARR stack health, but there is no explicit 'when to use this tool' or 'when to use an alternative.' The portmanteau rationale explains the consolidation but does not provide practical usage guidance.

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