download_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not confirm safety, authorization requirements, rate limits, or side effects. No details on return format or pagination are given.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It wastes no words, though it could be slightly more informative 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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, aggregation across services) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is too brief. It does not mention what 'arr services' are, how 'unified' status works, or what the response contains, making it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about the three parameters (services, includeDownloader, downloader). It fails to explain their roles, valid values, or interrelationships, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema names.

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 tool retrieves 'unified download status across arr services and downloaders', identifying a specific verb (Get) and resource (unified download status). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like queue_list or system_status by focusing on cross-service aggregation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., system_status or queue_list). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and sibling set.

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