grab_queue_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the forced import behavior and the target condition, but it does not mention side effects, whether the operation is asynchronous, or what happens to the queue item after grabbing. This is adequate but not richly transparent for a mutating action.

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, focused sentence that leads with the action, specifies the resource and state, and includes a helpful example. There is no filler or redundant information.

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 one-parameter action tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main invocation context: what to force, which items apply, and an example trigger condition. It could mention expected return values or side effects, but the core information an agent needs to select and call it is present.

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, 'ids', is already described as 'Queue item ids (from get_queue)'. The description adds the pending-state constraint, but the schema already handles the essential meaning, so the baseline of 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 clearly identifies the action ('Force Radarr to import'), the resource ('queue items'), and the specific state ('waiting in the pending state'). It also gives a concrete example, making it easy to distinguish from siblings like remove_queue_items or get_queue.

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 clear context for when this tool is relevant: when queue items are stuck in pending state, such as due to a delay profile. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is specific enough to route an agent toward this tool.

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