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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the intended effect (stopping re-adds) but does not mention that this creates a persistent exclusion record, whether duplicates are handled, if prior exclusions are overwritten, or what happens after invocation. This is a meaningful gap for a mutation tool.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the purpose. No wasted words.

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 two-parameter mutation, the description plus schema is enough to invoke the tool correctly. However, it lacks context around the exclusion workflow—such as how to undo it or what happens if the series is already excluded—which keeps it from being fully complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both tvdb_id and title. The description adds little beyond restating that the exclusion is keyed by TVDB id, so it meets the baseline but does not go beyond it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Exclude') with a clear resource ('a series from import lists by TVDB id') and states the intended outcome ('so lists stop re-adding it'). This distinguishes it from related tools like delete_import_list_exclusion and list_import_list_exclusions.

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 to use the tool: when an import list keeps re-adding a series that should be excluded. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Add' communicates that this is a mutating operation, but it does not disclose duplicate behavior, whether existing mappings are overwritten, validation requirements, or any side effects. This is a minimal disclosure for a write operation.

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 with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the action, resource, and scope.

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 three-parameter create operation with full schema coverage, the description is adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it could usefully mention duplicate behavior or what the response indicates, so it is not fully complete.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters clearly. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, placing it at the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') with a specific resource ('remote path mapping') and adds the context 'for a download client host.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling operations list_remote_path_mappings and delete_remote_path_mapping.

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 operation type is implied by the word 'Add' and the resource name, and the sibling set includes only list/delete variants, so selection is fairly obvious. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions like duplicate handling.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that this is a write operation and surfaces the important precondition about path existence and Sonarr write access. However, it does not mention error behavior, duplicate handling, or confirmation of success.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The operation verb is front-loaded, and the only necessary behavioral caveat follows immediately.

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 single-parameter tool with a fully described schema, the description plus schema provide the essential information: what to do, what parameter to pass, and what prerequisite must hold. The lack of an output schema and minimal error-handling detail are minor gaps for such a simple mutation.

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 input schema already documents the only parameter with a clear example ('Absolute path as Sonarr sees it, e.g. '/tv''). Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds a useful constraint (path must exist and be writable by Sonarr) but does not otherwise expand parameter meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('root folder'), making the operation immediately clear. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like list_root_folders, get_root_folder, and delete_root_folder.

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 clearly states the key prerequisite for use: the path must exist and be writable by Sonarr. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the operation is unambiguous and no direct alternative exists among sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a two-stage behavior: resolving metadata via lookup, then posting with the supplied settings. However, it does not mention side effects of adding a series, whether duplicate detection exists, what happens on invalid IDs, or any permission/authorization requirements.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and resource, then immediately gives the prerequisite data-fetching steps. Every sentence earns its place.

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 10-parameter write operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential workflow, required inputs, and prerequisites. It still leaves some gaps such as expected return value and post-add behavior, but the full parameter schema compensates for most optional details.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter in detail. The description adds mild reinforcement by naming tvdb_id, root folder, and quality profile as the core inputs, but it does not materially extend the parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb ('Add'), a concrete resource ('a new series to the library'), and the key input ('by TVDB id'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_series, update_series, and delete_series, so an agent can understand its role without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly instructs the agent to call list_root_folders and list_quality_profiles first to get valid ids, which is a clear prerequisite workflow. It does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool in favor of update_series or other alternatives, so it lacks full exclusionary guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a command is canceled; it does not disclose side effects, whether cancellation is permanent, error behavior for already-finished commands, or response/return behavior.

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?

One sentence with no waste: verb, resource, and eligibility states are all included. The core information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and the target command state. However, it leaves gaps around behavioral context such as permanence and error handling, and it does not mention how to obtain the id or what result to expect.

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 100%, with the id already documented as 'Command id', so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but no additional compensation is needed given the complete schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Cancel') and resource ('command'), and narrows scope to 'queued or running', making it clear which objects are eligible. This distinguishes it from related sibling tools like get_command, list_commands, and run_command.

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 'queued or running' qualifier implies when cancellation is valid, but the description gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives. An agent must infer that completed commands are out of scope and that get_command/list_commands are for inspecting command status.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the create action and references a schema tool. It does not mention what happens on invalid input, whether a created object is returned, how IDs are handled, or any side effects.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the schema-reference guidance follows immediately, making the description efficient and scannable.

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?

The description is adequate for finding the correct payload shape via get_custom_format_schema, which is the main challenge for this tool. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits expectations about the response, validation failures, and how the created format is identified or used afterward.

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 schema describes the single parameter as 'Full custom format object' but gives no inner structure. The description adds needed semantics by directing the agent to get_custom_format_schema to build the specifications, compensating for the schema's opacity.

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 states the exact action and object: 'Create a custom format.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like update_custom_format, delete_custom_format, and get_custom_format by naming the create operation on the same resource.

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 instruction to 'Build the specifications from get_custom_format_schema' provides a concrete workflow for correctly constructing the request. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the create-versus-update distinction is clear from the phrasing and sibling names.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that a new client is added and lists input fields; it does not mention whether creation triggers a connection test, what happens with duplicate names, whether the call is idempotent, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for a mutating create operation.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the body-construction guidance is packed with directly actionable information. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description is strong for input construction and references the correct schema endpoint, but it is incomplete given the lack of annotations and output schema. It does not cover behavioral outcomes such as whether the client is tested after creation, how errors or conflicts are handled, or what the return value represents. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 input schema only exposes an opaque 'config' object with additionalProperties allowed, so the description provides the essential internal structure. It explicitly enumerates the required properties such as name, implementation, configContract, fields array, and optional settings like enable, protocol, priority, and removal flags, which is far beyond what the schema offers.

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 a specific action and resource, 'Add a new download client,' which clearly distinguishes it from update, delete, list, get, and test siblings. It also references the schema tool that should be used to build the payload, further grounding its 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?

The description tells the agent to build the body from get_download_client_schema, which provides clear guidance for the creation workflow. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name update_download_client as the alternative for existing clients, but the context is still clear from the sibling list and verb.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly states that the operation adds a new import list and points to the schema for constructing a valid body. It does not describe response behavior, validation, or error handling, but the core mutation is explicit.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the action, and the second gives the essential construction guidance. The field list is long but necessary, and the instruction to use get_import_list_schema is front-loaded.

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 minimal schema, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a strong job by providing the schema source and listing required body fields. It could additionally mention what the API returns after creation, but that is not required to invoke the tool 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?

The schema only describes config as a generic object with additionalProperties true, leaving the actual structure opaque. The description adds high-value detail by listing the required fields: name, implementation, configContract, the fields array, enableAutomaticAdd, shouldMonitor, rootFolderPath, qualityProfileId, and seriesType, so an agent can construct the body correctly.

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 a specific verb and object, 'Add a new import list,' which clearly establishes the tool's purpose. Mentioning get_import_list_schema as the body source further distinguishes it from related update/delete/list operations.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to create a new import list. It also provides a concrete instruction to build the request body from get_import_list_schema. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the create semantics are unambiguous.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries most of the burden. It adds useful behavioral detail by requiring the config to be built from get_indexer_schema and enumerating required fields, but it doesn't describe return values, failure modes, duplicate handling, or side effects beyond creation.

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?

Two short, purposeful sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, the schema dependency is stated, and the field list is compact.

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 a single nested config parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete for invocation: it covers the source schema and required fields. It omits response/error expectations, but the agent has enough to construct a valid request.

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 schema only says config is 'Full indexer resource object, based on the schema,' which is generic. The description significantly adds meaning by listing the exact fields required: name, implementation, configContract, fields array, enableRss, enableAutomaticSearch, enableInteractiveSearch, priority, and protocol.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and a specific resource ('a new indexer'), making the action unmistakable. It is clearly differentiated from sibling tools like update_indexer, delete_indexer, and test_indexer by stating 'Add a new indexer'.

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 gives concrete procedural guidance: build the body from get_indexer_schema and include the listed fields. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the 'Add a new indexer' scoping makes the intended use clear.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core mutation ('Add a new notification connection') but does not mention whether the connection is validated/tested, whether existing names are overwritten, required permissions, or what happens on failure; a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage needs more than this.

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?

Two sentences with no redundant wording. The operation is front-loaded and the body-building instruction is placed immediately after, so the most actionable information appears first.

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 nested-object creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete: it points to get_notification_schema and lists key fields, but it does not enumerate all event toggles, describe the response, or mention validation behavior. An agent may still need to open the schema tool to be fully certain.

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?

Although the schema covers the single config parameter with a generic description, the description adds real semantic value by enumerating required keys (name, implementation, configContract, fields array, and event toggles). This goes beyond the schema and materially helps an agent construct a valid config object.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add'), names the resource ('notification connection'), and clarifies the scope by noting this is for a new connection, which distinguishes it from update_notification, delete_notification, and test_notification. It also states the source to build the body, removing ambiguity about the tool's role.

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 clearly frames when to use the tool (to add a new notification connection) and provides explicit construction guidance by pointing to get_notification_schema. It does not name alternatives or state exclusions, but the 'new' qualifier plus sibling names make the boundary with update/delete obvious.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the create action and describes how to construct the input object, but does not disclose consequences like duplicate names, validation behavior, whether defaults are applied, or what the response contains. Adequate for a straightforward create operation, but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler. The core verb and resource are front-loaded, and the workflow instruction earns its place by removing ambiguity about how to populate the nested object.

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 create tool taking a single opaque nested object with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it names the schema tool, the fields to set, and the create action. It could mention that the schema response should be used as a template or that the id should be omitted, but the essential path is covered.

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% (the single 'profile' parameter is described as 'Full quality profile object'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value beyond the schema by instructing the agent to obtain the object from get_quality_profile_schema and modify name, cutoff, and allowed items — guidance that makes the opaque nested parameter tractable.

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 'Create a quality profile' — a specific verb and resource that unmistakably conveys the operation. It also names get_quality_profile_schema as the starting point, which helps an agent navigate the create workflow. It doesn't explicitly contrast with update_quality_profile, but the create verb is inherently distinct from the update sibling.

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 gives clear, actionable context: start from get_quality_profile_schema, then set name, cutoff, and allowed items. This tells the agent the prerequisite workflow for this tool. It does not state when not to use it or point to the update alternative, so exclusions are missing, but the context is clear.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'Create' and shows an example object, but it does not mention idempotency, validation requirements, duplicate behavior, side effects, or what the API returns after creation. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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 sentence with an inline example, with no filler or repeated schema information. The example is useful and the core action is front-loaded. It could be slightly more structured, but it remains appropriately sized.

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 create operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate because it provides an example shape. However, it does not explain what fields are required, what values are valid (especially for indexerId and tags), or what response/error behavior to expect. Given the vague input schema and lack of annotations, more context would be needed for reliable invocation.

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 schema only describes release_profile as 'Full release profile object' with additionalProperties allowed, so it provides almost no structural detail. The description adds a concrete example with fields like name, enabled, required, ignored, indexerId, and tags, which meaningfully helps an agent construct the parameter despite the schema's vagueness.

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 begins with a clear verb and resource: 'Create a release profile.' The example object further clarifies the domain. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling update_release_profile or list_release_profiles beyond the word 'create,' so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'Create' — an agent can infer this is for creating a new release profile rather than updating or deleting one. The description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not point to alternatives such as update_release_profile or list_release_profiles.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it discloses nothing beyond 'creates'. It does not state whether creating a duplicate label errors, whether tags are case-sensitive, what the success response looks like, or whether the operation has any side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 three-word sentence with zero wasted words and is technically front-loaded. However, this is under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness — the brevity comes at the cost of all informative content, so it cannot be rated higher despite being short.

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 creation tool, the description plus schema is minimally workable, but it is incomplete in meaningful ways: no output schema exists, so the agent does not know what the call returns; no annotations cover safety or side effects; and there is no guidance on duplicate-label behavior. Given the tag-related sibling cluster, a sentence about uniqueness or listing existing tags first would materially improve completeness.

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 100%, with the label parameter documented as 'Tag label, e.g. anime', so the schema already carries the semantic load. The description itself adds nothing about parameters, but per the baseline for high coverage, the schema is sufficient; the description does not need to compensate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a tag'), and the operation type distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_tag, delete_tag, and list_tags. However, it is essentially a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name and adds no information about what a tag is, how tags are used, or any constraints, so it barely clears the minimum viability bar.

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 about when to call this tool versus alternatives. An agent is given no hint that it should check existing tags via list_tags before creating, whether duplicate labels are rejected or idempotently handled, or when tag management is relevant at all. Sibling tools exist but are never referenced.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the delete action and does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, whether it can fail due to dependencies (e.g., custom format in use by a release profile), or any other side effects. This is a minimal disclosure for a destructive operation.

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 concise sentence that states the action and resource with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Delete' and carries the core meaning immediately.

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 delete operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description combined with the schema is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. However, it omits any operational context such as permanency or failure conditions, which would make it fully complete.

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 100% and the single required parameter 'id' is described as 'Custom format id' in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Delete a custom format' uses a specific verb and resource, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_custom_format, update_custom_format, get_custom_format, and list_custom_formats by focusing on the delete action.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how to choose between delete_custom_format and update_custom_format or other delete operations. The only implied guidance is the tool's name, which is insufficient for the agent to make a fully informed choice.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the operation is destructive ('Delete') but gives no information about reversibility, impact on active downloads, associated data, or permission requirements. This is a thin disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 clear sentence with no wasted words. For a simple one-parameter delete tool, this level of brevity is appropriate, though it sacrifices useful context that could be added without much bloat.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to explain consequences, success/failure behavior, or constraints. It tells an agent what it deletes but not what happens after deletion or any caveats. For a destructive operation, this is noticeably 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 100%, with the 'id' parameter already described as 'download client id'. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 is a clear verb+resource statement: 'Delete a download client.' It unambiguously identifies the operation and target, distinguishing it from the many other delete_* siblings by naming the resource type. It doesn't elaborate on scope, but the basic purpose is unmistakable.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_series, delete_indexer, or other delete operations. No mention of prerequisites, whether the client can be deleted while in use, or any side effects. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key side effect: the file is removed from disk while the library entry remains and becomes missing. It does not mention irreversibility or permissions, but 'from disk' implies permanence. This is solidly transparent for a simple delete 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 two short sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded and the consequence is stated immediately, so every sentence earns its place.

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 destructive operation with no output schema, the description explains both the action and its direct consequence on the library. The level of detail is sufficient for an agent to decide whether to invoke this tool and what to expect.

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 100%, and the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's 'Episode file id'. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents the only parameter fully.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('episode file'), and explicitly limits the action to one file, distinguishing it from the plural sibling delete_episode_files. It also clarifies the downstream effect on the library, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 phrase 'one episode file' clearly signals this tool handles a single file, which implicitly contrasts with the plural sibling delete_episode_files. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the context is reasonably clear.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that files are deleted 'from disk', making the destructive nature clear, but it omits any mention of irreversibility, partial failure behavior, or permission requirements that would be valuable for a destructive operation.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and object with no filler. Every word adds meaning: 'several' conveys batch scope, 'from disk' clarifies the effect, and 'in one call' distinguishes from repeated single deletions.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core action adequately. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over the singular variant, and there is no mention of error handling or return behavior, which would round out the context.

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 100% with the parameter 'episode_file_ids' already described as 'Episode file ids to delete'. The description adds only the word 'several', which reinforces the array nature, but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 action ('Delete'), the resource ('episode files'), the scope ('several'), and the location ('from disk'). It effectively distinguishes this batch operation from the sibling 'delete_episode_file' by emphasizing 'in one call'.

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 phrase 'several... in one call' implies this is for batch deletion of multiple episode files, providing some usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention the singular alternative 'delete_episode_file' or state conditions for when one should be preferred over the other.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only repeats the delete action and does not disclose irreversibility, side effects on related data, error behavior, or any confirmation/return semantics.

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 short sentence with no filler, which is appropriately concise for such a simple operation. The grammatical error 'a import list' is a minor quality issue, but the structure is otherwise clean and front-loaded.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not tell the agent how to obtain the required id, that the operation is irreversible, or what to expect after deletion.

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 schema fully documents the single parameter id with the description 'import list id', so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already carries the necessary detail.

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 action ('Delete') and the resource ('a import list'), which is a specific, identifiable object. It is also distinct from the sibling delete_import_list_exclusion because it names the import list itself rather than an exclusion.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as delete_import_list_exclusion or update_import_list. There is no mention of prerequisites like obtaining the id via list_import_lists, and no exclusionary guidance is given.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly reveals the destructive nature ('Remove') and the intended outcome, but it does not mention permanence, side effects, or any requirements beyond the id, such as whether the exclusion must already exist.

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 one short sentence with the core action front-loaded, followed by the functional reason. Every word contributes value and there is no redundant boilerplate.

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 delete tool with full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete: it states the action, the target, and the outcome. A small gap is that it doesn't explicitly direct the user to obtain the id from list_import_list_exclusions, but this is reasonably implied by the resource name and schema.

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 100% and the 'id' parameter is already documented as 'Import list exclusion id'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, 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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and a specific resource ('import list exclusion'), and adds the meaningful consequence 'so lists may add the series again'. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like delete_import_list and add_import_list_exclusion.

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 phrase 'so lists may add the series again' provides clear context for when to use this tool: when an excluded series should become eligible for import lists again. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource is specific enough that confusion is unlikely.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a indexer' reveals that the operation is destructive, but it does not state whether deletion is permanent, what side effects occur (e.g., removal of associated data), or whether any confirmation or permissions are required. This is a significant gap for a delete operation.

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 short sentence with no wasted words. It directly conveys the operation, and the structure is appropriately minimal for such a simple 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?

The tool has a single well-documented parameter and no output schema, so the minimal description covers the core action. However, given that it is a destructive operation, the lack of any behavioral or usage context leaves some gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke it safely and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% because the only parameter 'id' is documented as 'indexer id' in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 'Delete a indexer' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (indexer), making it distinct from sibling tools like create_indexer, update_indexer, get_indexer, and test_indexer. Despite a minor grammar issue, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 or when to prefer an alternative. It simply states the action, leaving the agent to infer that it should be used when an indexer needs to be removed. No prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says only 'Delete,' which implies destructiveness, but it does not state whether deletion is permanent, whether it can be undone, what side effects occur, or whether special permissions are required.

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 short sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it is minimal enough that it does not quite reach the level of a fully helpful definition.

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 delete operation, the description plus schema is minimally sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits context about post-deletion behavior, reversibility, and side effects.

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 schema already documents the single parameter 'id' as 'notification connection id' with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no further semantic detail beyond confirming the resource type.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and a specific resource ('notification connection'), making it unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like list_notifications, get_notification, create_notification, update_notification, and test_notification. Even without reading the schema, an agent knows exactly what operation this tool performs.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as update_notification to modify or disable a connection. The description gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or context about when deletion is appropriate.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions one constraint (must not be in use) but does not state that deletion is destructive/permanent, what happens if the precondition is violated, or any side effects. This is minimal disclosure for a delete operation.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core operation is stated first, and the necessary precondition is given second. Every word earns its place.

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 delete tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description covers the essential action and the main precondition. It omits error behavior or confirmation details, but those are not critical for selecting and invoking the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% — the single 'id' parameter is documented as 'Quality profile id'. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Delete' with the resource 'quality profile' and adds a clear precondition ('must not be in use by any series'). This clearly distinguishes it from other delete_* tools and from quality profile create/update/get operations.

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?

It provides a clear usage condition: the profile must not be in use by any series. This tells the agent when deletion is valid. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the operation and resource are clear enough to route usage correctly.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Delete' implies destructiveness, but the description does not mention whether deletion is permanent, whether it can fail (e.g., if the profile is referenced), or what response to expect. This is a minimal behavioral disclosure.

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?

One clean, grammatically complete sentence with zero filler. It front-loads the action and resource immediately, and is as concise as a simple deletion tool description can reasonably be.

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 very simple 1-parameter tool, the description is nearly sufficient to invoke it, but it lacks any behavioral context such as irreversibility or error conditions. The absence of an output schema and annotations raises the burden on the description, leaving this minimally viable but not complete.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, describing 'id' as 'Release profile id'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 states a specific action ('Delete') on a specific resource ('release profile'), which unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_release_profile, update_release_profile, and list_release_profiles. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 alternatives, such as noting that the id should come from list_release_profiles or that there may be restrictions on deleting profiles in use. The description simply states the action without any context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Delete,' which implies a destructive operation, but it does not disclose irreversibility, side effects, permission requirements, or what happens to any dependent data.

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 sentence with no wasted words and is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter operation. It is efficient, though it borders on under-specification by omitting any additional guidance.

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 delete operation, the description plus schema is enough for an agent to know how to invoke it. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits side effects, return behavior, and error conditions, leaving a moderate completeness gap.

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 100%, and the schema already documents id as 'Remote path mapping id' and marks it required. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Delete a remote path mapping.' It is distinguishable from sibling tools like list_remote_path_mappings and add_remote_path_mapping by the delete action and specific resource. It does not explicitly mention deletion by id, but the single required id parameter makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions such as whether the mapping must be unused. The context is only implied by the tool name and description, with no exclusions or alternative routing provided.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the safety burden. The 'Files on disk are not touched' statement is a valuable disclosure that the operation is non-destructive to media files, but it does not reveal other meaningful behavioral traits such as whether the removal is reversible or what happens to series that reference the root folder.

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 entire description is two short sentences, front-loading the action and then adding the key caveat. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 delete operation with no output schema, the description covers the core action and the most important side-effect: files on disk are untouched. It still leaves some uncertainty about consequences for series assigned to the root folder and about response or error behavior, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 single required parameter id is already fully documented in the schema as 'Root folder id', and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed beyond the schema. 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 uses the explicit verb 'Remove' and names the exact resource 'root folder' within Sonarr, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like add_root_folder, list_root_folders, and get_root_folder. It also adds the important scope that files on disk are untouched.

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 implies the tool is appropriate when a root folder should be removed from Sonarr's configuration, and the 'Files on disk are not touched' caveat suggests it is not the tool for deleting actual media files. However, it never names sibling tools or explicitly states when not to use it, leaving selection largely to inference from the tool name.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the main effect and the two optional destructive behaviors: deleting files from disk and adding an import list exclusion. However, it does not mention irreversibility, return behavior, or what happens to the series record if delete_files is false, which are meaningful gaps for a delete operation.

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?

A single well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and appends the optional behaviors in a logical order. Every phrase contributes meaning, including the rationale for the import list exclusion ('so lists do not re-add it'). There is no filler or redundancy.

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 straightforward delete tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers the primary action and all optional side effects. It is missing an explicit irreversibility warning and a direct contrast with the bulk delete sibling, but the provided information is otherwise sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does and invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description conceptually maps to the optional parameters—delete_files and add_import_list_exclusion—but it adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. The required id parameter is not elaborated on, but the schema already documents it clearly.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a series from the library.' It clearly states the core action and the optional side effects—deleting files and adding an import list exclusion. It does not explicitly contrast with delete_series_bulk, but the singular 'a series' implies single-series operation, which is enough to differentiate from the bulk sibling.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_series_bulk or delete_episode_file. It implies use when removing a single series, but it does not state the condition for choosing the bulk variant or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria from the name alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the optional file deletion and import-list exclusion behavior, but it does not warn about irreversibility, default behavior, or what happens to files when delete_files is false.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence communicates the core action and both optional behaviors with zero wasted words. This is appropriately concise.

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 bulk deletion tool with three well-documented parameters, the description covers the essential selection and invocation context. It does not describe the return value or failure semantics, but the absence of an output schema makes that a minor gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description lightly maps to parameters ('many series' to series_ids, 'deleting their files' to delete_files, 'import list exclusions' to add_import_list_exclusion) but adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Remove'), a clear resource ('series'), and the bulk scope ('many... at once'). It also names the two optional side effects, distinguishing it from the singular delete_series sibling.

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 phrase 'Remove many series... at once' clearly signals this is the batch-deletion tool, which is context enough to differentiate it from the singular delete_series tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important behavioral trait: the tag is automatically removed from every series and provider using it, which is more than just 'deletes'. It doesn't mention irreversibility or prerequisites, but the cascading removal is the most critical behavior for an agent to understand.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the key behavioral side effect is front-loaded in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, this description is complete: it states the action and the impactful side effect. An agent knows what will happen and what identifier is required, making further context unnecessary.

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 100% (the only parameter, 'id', is documented as 'Tag id'). The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a clear verb ('Delete') and resource ('a tag'), and goes beyond the name by specifying the consequence: removal from every series and provider using it. This unambiguously differentiates it from other tag-related tools like list_tags, create_tag, and update_tag.

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: this tool is used to delete a tag, with the side effect of detaching it from all series and providers. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the operation is self-evident and there is no competing delete-tag sibling.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys the bulk mutation scope but does not disclose consequential side effects such as file moves when changing root folders (move_files), the impact of unmonitoring many series simultaneously, or the implied write/irreversibility risk of a bulk operation. This is a meaningful gap for a tool that can alter many series at once.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the differentiating scope ('many series at once'), then lists editable fields compactly. The parenthetical '(the series editor)' is slightly redundant for an API context, but it is brief and does not dilute the message.

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 10-parameter bulk-mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the 'what' (purpose and editable fields) with the schema covering parameter details. However, it lacks guidance on consequences of bulk root-folder/monitoring changes and any caveats about combining parameters, leaving the agent under-informed about operational risk.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents every parameter including enums and defaults. The description adds a light grouping of the field categories (monitoring, quality profile, etc.) which orients the agent, but it contributes no per-parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb (apply), a resource (series), and a scope ('many series at once'), then enumerates the editable fields: monitoring, quality profile, series type, season folders, root folder, tags. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like update_series (single series edits) and delete_series_bulk (deletion), so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'many series at once' implies the use case — batch editing rather than per-series updates — which implicitly contrasts with update_series. However, the description never names alternatives explicitly or states when not to use this tool, so the routing guidance is left to inference.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add value by stating the operation is paginated ('Page through') and that each entry includes the block reason. However, it never explicitly confirms this is a read-only, side-effect-free operation, and it omits details like result ordering or behavior with no matches — beyond the schema's 'default' sort_direction enum.

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?

A single 22-word sentence with the core verb+resource front-loaded, followed by a clarifying definitional clause. Every word earns its place — the em-dash gloss explains the Sonarr-specific concept rather than padding, and there is no re-stating of schema or annotation content.

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 paginated list tool with 0 required parameters, full schema coverage, and a self-explanatory name, the description captures the essential semantics: what is listed, the pagination behavior, and one key return field (block reason). What's missing is minor — an explicit read-only statement and the full set of fields in each entry — but since there is no output schema, slightly more return-shape detail would round it out.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters (page, sort_key, page_size, protocols, series_ids, sort_direction), including defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema; its only contribution is framing the domain meaning of the entries being filtered, which is the expected baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Page through') tied to a precise resource ('blocklisted releases') and defines the domain term in the em-dash clause ('releases Sonarr has been told never to grab again'). It also signals what distinguishes the data — 'with the reason they were blocked' — which separates it from siblings like get_queue or get_history, and the read nature contrasts with remove_blocklist_item/remove_blocklist_items.

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 vs alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer it over get_history, get_queue, or the remove_blocklist_* siblings, and no exclusion criteria. The intended context is only implied by the tool name and the word 'blocklisted'.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core listing behavior and adds a genuinely useful server-side default for the date range. However, it does not describe the default summary output shape or how the return varies with the detailed/include flags, leaving those details to the schema.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the action and scope are front-loaded, and the default date behavior earns its place as the second sentence. Very easy to scan.

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 read-only listing tool with zero required parameters and a fully documented schema, the description conveys purpose and the key default. Since there is no output schema, a brief note about the default response shape would make it fully complete, but the current definition is still sufficient for correct invocation.

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 every parameter has a meaningful description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the key semantic that omitting start/end defaults to today/tomorrow on the Sonarr side, which is not captured in the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('List episodes') and scopes it to date range, with 'what aired recently and what is coming up' clarifying the calendar role. This clearly distinguishes it from the episode lookup/list tools among the siblings.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool: it is the calendar/date-range airing query, and the today/tomorrow default is useful operational guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of the strongest routing guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey that this is a read-only polling operation and that the command was started elsewhere, but it does not describe possible command states, whether results expire, or how failures surface. This is adequate but not rich.

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 one front-loaded sentence with no filler. The core action comes first, followed by a relevant use-case clause, and nothing restates the schema or annotations.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description supplies both the tool's purpose and the appropriate polling context, while the schema covers the id semantics. It could describe the expected status values or response shape, but nothing critical to selecting and invoking the tool is missing.

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 100%, and the id parameter is already documented as 'Command id returned when the command was queued.' The description adds only 'by id' and no additional format or source detail, so a baseline score 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the status of a single command by id.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_commands (plural) and run_command (starting a command), and the single-command scope distinguishes it from get_queue_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?

The phrase 'poll this after starting a search or refresh' provides a concrete and correct invocation context. However, it does not state when not to use the tool or name alternative tools such as list_commands or get_queue_status, so it falls just short of a 5.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the response includes a full specification list but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the ID does not exist, or any error/edge-case behavior.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then specifies the return content efficiently.

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 get-by-id tool with one documented parameter, the description is mostly sufficient, but the lack of an output schema and any detail about error behavior or response format leaves minor gaps. The phrase 'full specification list' conveys the general output but not its structure.

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 input schema already documents the only parameter 'id' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('one custom format'), and the expected content ('full specification list'), which distinguishes it from list_custom_formats. It does not explicitly contrast it with get_custom_format_schema, but the singular 'one' and 'full specification list' make the primary purpose clear.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_custom_formats or get_custom_format_schema. An agent must infer from the tool name and required 'id' field that this is for retrieving a single existing custom format by ID.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a read-only listing operation and names the content, but it does not describe the response shape, potential errors, or any side effects. This is adequate for a simple schema-listing tool but not richly transparent.

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?

A single sentence front-loads the verb and resource, adds illustrative examples, and contains no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter schema-listing tool, the description is nearly complete: it states what is listed and hints at the content. It does not explicitly describe the return format, but the simple nature of the operation makes that a minor omission.

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 and an empty input schema, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter documentation needed, and the description does not need to compensate for any parameter gaps.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('specification types a custom format can use'), with concrete examples. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_custom_format, which returns an actual custom format, and list_custom_formats, which lists custom formats themselves.

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 implies this tool is for discovering available specification types and their fields when working with custom formats, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or typical workflow context.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the core filtering behavior and pagination, but it does not mention return shape, defaults, or explicitly confirm that the operation is read-only. The behavioral insight is useful but incomplete.

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, information-dense sentence that leads with the action and resource, then adds purpose. Every word contributes meaning; there is no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 paginated read/list tool, the description combined with the fully documented schema is largely sufficient: the selection criterion is explicit and the purpose is clear. It lacks only an explicit pointer to sibling tools with overlapping purposes, such as get_missing_episodes.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema already explains page, detailed, sort_key, monitored, page_size, include_series, sort_direction, and include_episode_file adequately.

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 names a specific resource ('episodes that have a file but have not reached their quality profile cutoff') and a specific action ('Page through'), and it concludes with the purpose ('candidates for an upgrade'). This clearly distinguishes it from related tools like get_missing_episodes, which targets episodes lacking files.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when the agent needs episodes that already have a file but are below the quality cutoff and may be upgrade candidates. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that the tool covers all drives and root folders visible to Sonarr and reports both free and total space. However, it does not mention units, response shape, or potential errors or latency for large/unavailable drives.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the scope. There is no filler or redundant wording.

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 no-parameter, read-only utility with no annotations and no output schema, this description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent exactly what will be retrieved and for which targets.

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 and the schema is trivially fully described, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a concrete resource (free and total disk space), and a precise scope ('every drive and root folder Sonarr can see'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the many sibling tools, none of which target disk-space enumeration.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. There are no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison with sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral aspect: the returned object includes the full 'fields' array, which is the implementation-specific settings. But it doesn't mention response shape beyond that, potential errors, permissions, or whether the fields array is guaranteed to be populated. Adequate but minimal.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and resource immediately, then appends a parenthetical that adds high-value detail about what 'fields' means. No wasted words.

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 get-by-id operation with one required parameter and no output schema, the description provides the key contextual detail: the response includes the full fields array. It does not cover error conditions or response format beyond that, but the tool's simplicity makes this acceptable. Slightly more context about the return value would make it fully complete.

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%: the single 'id' parameter is described as 'download client id'. The description adds no additional semantic meaning for the parameter, but none is needed given the schema already fully documents it. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one download client'), and explicitly calls out the unique distinguishing feature: the full 'fields' array (implementation-specific settings). This clearly differentiates it from list_download_clients and get_download_client_schema without needing to inspect sibling names.

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 implies the use case: when you need a single client's detailed implementation-specific settings rather than just the list. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it (e.g., 'use list_download_clients to retrieve all clients'). The guidance is present but only implied.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of conveying behavioral traits. The verb 'Get' clearly signals a read-only operation, and the parenthetical adds context about what config domain is covered. However, it does not disclose return format, whether a global config object is returned, or any error/edge-case behavior, though for a zero-parameter getter this is a moderate gap.

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 with no filler. Every word contributes: the verb, the resource, and the clarifying parenthetical all add value. It is as concise as possible without losing meaning.

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 zero-parameter getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it names the exact configuration domain and the operation. It does not describe the response shape, but 'configuration' reasonably implies a settings object, and the low complexity means little else is needed.

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 schema is trivially complete and the description has no parameter-semantics burden to bear. The description's mention of 'completed and failed download handling' is the only domain context needed, which is sufficient given there is nothing to configure at call time.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('download client configuration'), and the parenthetical '(completed and failed download handling)' adds useful scoping that helps distinguish it from sibling tools like get_download_client. It is not fully explicit about whether this is the global app-level config vs. a per-client config, but the parenthetical narrows the meaning enough.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_download_client, get_download_client_schema, or update_download_client_config. The purpose is implicitly clear, but there is no stated condition or exclusion, so an agent must infer when this is the right choice.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that this is a read-only schema listing and that fields are creation templates, but it does not disclose that supplying the 'implementation' parameter returns only that implementation's schema rather than the full list. This is a meaningful behavioral nuance left to the input schema.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The first sentence states exactly what the tool returns, and the second provides the primary use case. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned and why an agent would call it. The only gap is not explicitly stating the behavior when 'implementation' is supplied, but the parameter schema covers that and the tool is simple enough that the description is nearly complete.

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 100%, so the parameter is already well documented ('Only the schema for this implementation, e.g. 'Newznab' or 'QBittorrent''). The description adds a useful framing — fields as templates for create_download_client — but does not substantially clarify optional filtering behavior beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every download client implementation Sonarr supports') and clearly states its output scope: the fields each implementation takes. It also points to create_download_client, which distinguishes it from schema-getters for other domains and from get_download_client, which retrieves an existing client.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: as the template for create_download_client. It does not name alternative tools for editing or inspecting existing clients, but the reference to the creation flow is enough to establish primary usage context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must indicate side effects and scope. 'Get' and the described contents make it clear this is a read operation returning the full object, but it does not disclose response shape, error behavior, or any permissions needed 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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and object, then adds the two most decision-relevant details (overview and linked file). No filler.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose and the key included data. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus related siblings, but this is a minor gap for such a simple operation.

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 100%; the parameter 'id' is already documented as 'Sonarr episode id'. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, matching the baseline for fully self-documenting schemas.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the resource ('full episode object'), and specifies distinctive contents (overview plus the linked episode file with quality and media info). This distinguishes it from list_episodes, which lists episodes, and get_episode_file, which targets the file directly.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving a complete episode aggregate rather than just episode metadata or a separate file. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_episodes or get_episode_file, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful behavioral trait — that the result includes full media info — but does not mention error behavior on invalid IDs, whether media info analysis can be slow, or any other operational traits. The 'Get' verb clearly signals a read-only operation, which keeps this at an adequate level.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and adds the key value proposition ('full media info') without any filler. Every word earns its place; nothing extraneous.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool: one required numeric parameter with full schema coverage. The description's mention of 'full media info' partially compensates for the missing output schema. The main remaining gap is the lack of explicit distinction from the closely related get_episode and list_episode_files, but for a simple ID-based getter, the description is nearly complete.

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 100%, with 'id' documented as 'Episode file id,' so the schema fully explains the parameter. The description adds no further parameter detail, but per the baseline for high schema coverage, no compensation is required. Score 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource ('a single episode file'), and notes the return includes 'full media info.' The 'single' qualifier and 'file' resource implicitly differentiate it from list_episode_files and get_episode, though it does not name those siblings explicitly, so it stops just short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_episode, list_episode_files, or update_episode_files. The word 'single' weakly implies it is for retrieving one specific file by ID, but no context, exclusions, or alternative routing is provided, 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.

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It conveys that the tool returns active health warnings/errors with links, which is helpful, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, auth-free, or side-effect free. For a simple zero-parameter getter, this is minimally adequate.

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 that leads with the action and resource and immediately states the key output detail (wiki links). No words are wasted.

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 zero-parameter health-read tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it tells the agent exactly what will be returned (active warnings and errors, with a wiki link for each). Nothing essential is missing at this level of complexity.

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, and the input schema is empty. There is no parameter surface to document, so the description does not need to add anything here; the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('active health check warnings and errors'), and it adds the distinctive detail of a wiki link per item. This makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_system_status or get_queue_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?

The description says what the tool returns but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. The usage context is only implicit in the tool name and the word 'Get'.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does communicate that this is a read-style paginated listing of history events. It adds useful context about the content (grabbed, imported, failed, deleted, renamed, indexer), but it does not disclose any side effects, permission needs, rate limits, or pagination behavior beyond the word 'page through.'

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that immediately states the operation and scope, then enumerates the key covered event types. It is concise without sacrificing necessary detail.

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 no output schema and 10 parameters, the description gives a solid high-level overview but leaves gaps: it does not describe the response shape, pagination defaults, or how this history differs from the 'since' and 'series' variants. The schema fills parameter details, yet the description alone is not fully complete for an agent choosing among history-related tools.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters thoroughly. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; its mention of event types and indexer aligns with what the schema already enumerates, so the baseline score 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 resource (grab and import history) and the operation (page through), and enumerates the event categories covered. It is specific enough to distinguish from most sibling tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from get_history_since or get_series_history.

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 gives a clear sense of what the tool returns but offers no guidance on when to use it versus the closely related get_history_since or get_series_history tools. No exclusions, alternatives, or selection criteria are provided.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that the response is unpaged and includes every history record in the date range, which are important behavioral traits. But it does not mention ordering, potential large-result implications, or what fields the returned records contain.

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?

Two short sentences deliver the core behavior and a practical use case without any filler. The main action is front-loaded immediately, and every word contributes to understanding the 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?

For a simple date-filtered read tool, this is nearly complete: it identifies what is returned, the temporal scope, and a canonical use case. It would be stronger with explicit routing to related history tools or a note about response contents, but the absent output schema is not a major issue given the domain clarity.

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 100%, so the schema already documents date, event_type, include_series, and include_episode. The description reinforces that 'date' is the temporal cutoff but adds no meaning for the optional parameters, matching the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 states a specific verb ('get'), a clear resource ('history record'), and a precise temporal constraint ('since a date'). The word 'unpaged' helps distinguish it from likely paged history endpoints, and the accompanying use case removes ambiguity.

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 phrase 'useful for "what happened since yesterday" style questions' gives clear guidance on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like get_history or get_series_history, nor does it state when those should be preferred, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation and no destructive side effects, but the description does not explain the response format or any operational caveats.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence contains the verb, resource, and key fields with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter read-only getter with no output schema, this is nearly complete: it names the resource and summarizes the returned categories. It could be more explicit about the exact response shape, but that is a minor gap.

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 and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description's parenthetical adds useful context about the output fields but there are no parameter semantics to clarify.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('host configuration'), with the parenthetical enumerating port, URL base, proxy, and logging. This is clear and distinct from siblings like get_ui_config or get_system_status, though it does not explicitly call out any sibling.

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?

There is no guidance about when to call this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. An agent must infer from the name and the parenthetical that this is for host-level settings.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior, and it does add value by disclosing that the response contains the full implementation-specific 'fields' array. However, it does not describe error cases, permissions, or the broader response shape beyond that one field.

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?

One sentence with no wasted words; the primary purpose is stated first and the distinguishing response detail is included succinctly.

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 single-parameter read operation, the description covers what is returned ('full fields array') and the resource being fetched. It lacks only minor context such as error behavior, but the overall definition is sufficient for an agent to invoke it 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?

The input schema already documents the only parameter (id) with a clear description, and coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a singular resource ('one import list') and highlights the distinctive detail that the response includes the full 'fields' array. This clearly differentiates it from list_import_lists, which returns multiple lists, and from get_import_list_schema, which returns schema metadata.

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 wording implies this tool is for fetching a specific import list by id, but it never explicitly says when to prefer it over list_import_lists or get_import_list_schema. There is no when-not or alternative guidance.

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

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 communicates that this is a read-only retrieval, but it adds little beyond that—no mention of return value, error conditions, or system-level effects. For a simple getter this is minimally adequate, but not rich.

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 sentence with no filler, redundant phrases, or unnecessary detail. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to the meaning.

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 an output schema and annotations, plus several similarly named siblings, the one-line description is not complete enough. It does not clarify what the configuration contains, what kind of object is returned, or how 'configuration' differs from 'schema', 'list', or a specific import list.

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 zero parameters and the input schema is already fully descriptive by being empty, so the parameter-semantics baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none are 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 uses a clear verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('the import list configuration'), which distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that mutate or list resources. However, it does not explicitly differentiate 'configuration' from the similar 'get_import_list_schema' or 'get_import_list', so it stops short of a 5.

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 retrieve this configuration versus using alternatives like get_import_list, get_import_list_schema, or update_import_list_config. The verb 'Get' implies a read operation, but there is no explicit context or exclusion to help an agent choose correctly.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must show side effects and return behavior itself; 'List' makes the read-only nature clear, and 'with the fields each one takes' describes the returned content. It omits details like exact response structure, but for a schema endpoint this is reasonable and not misleading.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first states the full scope of what is returned, the second states the intended follow-up action. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), and the description explains the list content and intended use well. It does not explicitly say that passing implementation narrows the response, but the schema already covers that, so the overall definition is complete enough for an agent.

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 description adds context that omitting the implementation returns all implementations, while the schema's own description already documents the single-implementation filter with examples. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description reinforces rather than adds significant new meaning.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('every import list implementation Sonarr supports'), and the output's purpose ('fields each one takes'). It also connects directly to create_import_list, which distinguishes it from general list/get tools like list_import_lists and get_import_list.

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?

It explicitly states the primary use case: use the returned schema as a template for create_import_list. It does not enumerate exclusions or compare against get_indexer_schema/get_download_client_schema, but the import-list scope makes the intended context clear.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a read-only retrieval ('Get') and adds context about the returned 'fields' array, but it does not mention error behavior, authentication requirements, or what happens for missing/invalid IDs. This is adequate for a simple GET but not fully transparent.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, target, and an important distinguishing detail. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 single-resource retrieval with one required parameter, the description is nearly complete. It specifies the resource, the selection mechanism, and a key aspect of the return payload. Absence of an output schema makes the 'fields array' mention helpful, though it could still clarify the exact response envelope.

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%, with the 'id' parameter already described as 'indexer id'. The description confirms that the tool returns one indexer matching that ID, but it does not add meaningful new semantic detail about parameter format, constraints, or usage beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('one indexer'), clearly distinguishing it from list_indexers by scope. It also adds the valuable detail that the full 'fields' array is included, which identifies this tool's unique retrieval 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?

The description implies usage for fetching a single indexer by ID, and the mention of the 'fields' array suggests why you might choose it over listing indexers. However, it does not explicitly state when to use get_indexer versus alternatives like list_indexers or get_indexer_schema, leaving some inference to the agent.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole signal for behavioral profile. The word 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not state whether the configuration is fetched live, cached, or how failures manifest. For a zero-parameter getter this is minimally acceptable but not richly transparent.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The core action, resource, and scope of the configuration are all conveyed efficiently.

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 zero-parameter retrieval tool, the description provides enough context to know what is being fetched. The lack of an output schema and any note about the return shape leaves a small gap, but the listed configuration elements give an agent a reasonable expectation of the result.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The parenthetical in the description adds useful context about what the returned configuration contains, which partially compensates for the absence of an output schema.

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 identifies a specific action ('Get') and resource ('indexer configuration'), with the parenthetical further specifying the exact settings returned: RSS interval, retention, and availability delay. This clearly distinguishes it from related tools like get_indexer or update_indexer_config.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_indexer, list_indexers, or update_indexer_config. The usage must be inferred entirely from the name and description.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of conveying that this is a read-only schema-listing operation, and 'List' plus 'Use this as the template for create_indexer' makes that clear. It does not discuss edge cases or side effects, but none are likely for a schema retrieval tool, so the main behavior is transparent.

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?

Two tightly written sentences accomplish both the definition and the primary use case. There is no filler and the key behavior is front-loaded.

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 read-only schema tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description tells the agent what it returns and why to call it. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 input schema already documents the single optional implementation parameter with an example, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds context about listing every implementation, but it does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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 states a specific action ('List') and resource ('every indexer implementation Sonarr supports, with the fields each one takes'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_indexer and create_indexer by identifying what it produces.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to use this as the template for create_indexer, which is clear usage guidance. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the primary use case is obvious and still a strong signal.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey the core behavior: a read-only retrieval of log file contents as text. However, it does not state non-destructiveness, failure behavior for invalid filenames, size limits, or any other edge-case behavior. For a simple download tool, the basic behavior is clear enough for a baseline score.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action, resource, and output format. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague filler.

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 tool with no output schema, this is nearly complete: it states what is downloaded, how many files, and the return format. The schema provides the filename source and example. The only minor gap is that the description itself does not explicitly mention the list_log_files prerequisite, but the schema and sibling context make it recoverable.

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 100%, and the schema already documents the filename parameter with its source ('from list_log_files') and an example. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 action ('download'), the resource ('contents of one log file'), and the return format ('as text'). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like list_log_files and list_logs, which are about listing rather than downloading file contents.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or mention of the prerequisite that the filename comes from list_log_files. That hint exists only in the schema's parameter description, so the tool description itself does not help an agent decide when to invoke this versus alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden, and it does well: 'List' signals a non-mutating read operation, and the description reveals meaningful behavior such as mapping files to series/episodes and returning rejection reasons. It does not explicitly state that no changes are made, but the verb and diagnostic framing make that apparent.

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 two sentences with no filler. The main behavior is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is appended efficiently. Every phrase contributes meaning.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides enough high-level context for an agent to select and invoke it: it names the inputs, the operation, and the output shape. It could be more explicit about whether one of folder/download_id is required and what happens if both are provided, but the description covers the primary invocation context.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful relational semantics by framing 'folder or a stuck download' as the two primary input routes, corresponding to folder and download_id. This helps an agent understand that these are alternative inspection targets rather than independent filters.

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 states a specific action ('List files') and a clear resource ('in a folder or a stuck download'), and explains what the result contains: the Sonarr-mapped series/episodes and rejection reasons. It also names its intended diagnostic purpose, which differentiates it from sibling tools that list episodes, queue items, or files without mapping/rejection context.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: 'diagnose imports that need manual interaction.' It does not name specific alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the unique purpose and output make the use case reasonably clear without them.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Get' without explicitly stating read-only semantics, that no configuration is modified, what the response will contain, or any special permissions. Most behavior is left to inference from the tool name rather than disclosed.

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 a useful parenthetical. It is front-loaded, contains no filler, and every component adds meaning.

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 zero-parameter config getter, the description names the resource and its key sub-areas. There is no output schema and no annotation coverage, so it could have added return-shape details or explicitly noted that it is the read counterpart to update_media_management_config, but the essential invocation information 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully documents the input surface. With no params, no additional parameter explanation is needed, and the baseline of 4 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('media management configuration'), and the parenthetical 'import, file handling, permissions' specifies the scope. It is distinguishable from other config getters like get_naming_config or get_ui_config, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

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 about when to use this tool versus siblings such as update_media_management_config, get_naming_config, or get_indexer_config. The read-only getter role is implied by the name, but the description itself gives no selection criteria or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the core behavioral contract: the returned set is filtered to monitored, already-aired, no-file episodes, and 'page through' signals paginated lazy loading. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only with no side effects, nor does it describe the response envelope or note that detailed=true changes payload size. Adequate but not rich.

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?

One 16-word sentence with no filler. The actionable criteria are front-loaded before the em-dash, and the canonical 'wanted/missing list' label is appended as a useful lexical hook. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only list endpoint with seven optional, fully documented parameters and no required inputs, the description plus schema covers the callable contract well. The only gap: there is no output schema and the description never hints at the return shape (whether responses include pagination metadata or raw arrays), so an agent must guess at the response envelope. Minor given the tool's simplicity and the 'page through' framing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description echoes the 'monitored' filter and adds the air/no-file context that frames why sort_key/detailed/page_size exist, but it adds no syntax, formatting, or interaction details beyond the schema. It neither needs to compensate nor goes out of its way to enrich the parameters.

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 names a specific verb ('page through'), a precise resource predicate (monitored episodes that have already aired but have no file), and attaches the canonical Sonarr term 'wanted/missing list.' This clearly distinguishes it from list_episodes (all episodes), get_episode (single episode), get_calendar (date-based), and especially get_cutoff_unmet_episodes (episodes with files below quality cutoff, not missing files).

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 implies the use case — find monitored episodes that aired but were never downloaded — through its filter criteria, which is good context for an agent hunting for content gaps. However, it never explicitly contrasts with get_cutoff_unmet_episodes, the closest sibling, nor states when NOT to use it. The distinction between 'no file at all' (missing) and 'file below quality' (cutoff unmet) is left for the agent to infer.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get' clearly signals a read-only operation with no side effects, but the description does not mention return shape, whether defaults are included, or any error behavior. For a zero-parameter getter this is a moderate but acceptable gap.

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?

A single declarative sentence with no filler or redundant information. The verb and object are front-loaded, and the length is appropriate for a simple zero-parameter getter.

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, side-effect-free getter with no parameters, the definition is largely complete and unambiguous for tool selection and invocation. The absence of an output schema and lack of any detail about the returned configuration fields are minor gaps, but they do not prevent correct usage.

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 input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is effectively complete, so no parameter documentation is needed. The baseline for zero-parameter tools applies; the description adds no parameter semantics, but none are required.

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?

States a specific verb ('get') and a specific resource ('file and folder naming configuration'), clearly indicating a read-only retrieval. It does not explicitly contrast itself with get_naming_examples or update_naming_config, but the resource named is distinct enough to avoid major confusion.

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 about when to use this tool versus related siblings such as get_naming_examples or update_naming_config. The 'get' phrasing implies use when the current naming configuration is needed, but no context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly communicates the tool is non-mutating ('without saving it') and that results are a preview. It doesn't describe the output shape or error behavior, but for a simple preview tool the core side-effect and intent are disclosed.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The key purpose and safety characteristic ('without saving it') are front-loaded, followed by the parameter guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description and input schema together fully cover what the agent needs: what it does, when to use it, and what to pass. The absence of an output schema is acceptable because 'Preview the filenames' conveys the essential return concept.

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 100%, and the schema already explains that config is a draft and that the saved config is used when omitted. The description reinforces this by saying 'Pass a naming config object to try a draft format', but adds little beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Preview') and resource ('filenames a naming format would produce'), and explicitly notes 'without saving it', distinguishing it from saving operations like update_naming_config. The 'draft format' phrasing makes its purpose unmistakable.

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?

It clearly states the use case: pass a naming config object to try a draft format. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as update_naming_config or get_naming_config, but the 'without saving it' contrast implies when this tool should be used over the saving tool. A small explicit mention of the alternative would make it a 5.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: the response includes the full 'fields' array of implementation-specific settings. However, it does not mention error behavior (e.g., what happens if the id is invalid) or explicitly confirm that the operation has no side effects, though 'Get' strongly implies a read.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that front-loads the main action ('Get one notification connection') and adds the most important detail (inclusion of full fields array) in a parenthetical. 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 read operation, the description is largely complete: it identifies what is returned and highlights the important detail about the fields array. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the response shape could help, but the low complexity and clear single parameter make this adequate.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'id' parameter as 'notification connection id'. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter format, constraints, or examples; it only reinforces the purpose of the retrieved resource. 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one notification connection'), and explicitly highlights the distinguishing feature: it includes the full 'fields' array with implementation-specific settings. This differentiates it from list_notifications and get_notification_schema without needing to inspect either tool.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when a single notification connection is needed with its full fields/settings. It implies that list_notifications may omit these details, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It transparently indicates a read-only listing behavior and what the output contains: every notification implementation and its fields. It does not describe filtering behavior, but the parameter schema covers that, and the tool's non-mutating nature is implied by 'List' and 'schema.'

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 two short sentences with no filler. The main behavior is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a directly actionable use case. Every word contributes value.

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 read-only schema tool, the description plus the fully documented parameter is adequate. There is no output schema, but the description explains what the tool returns. It could mention that omitting 'implementation' returns all schemas, but that is reasonably inferable from the parameter description and the wording 'every notification connection implementation.'

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 single parameter 'implementation' is fully described in the JSON schema with 100% coverage, including an example value. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 states the tool's verb ('List') and resource ('every notification connection implementation Sonarr supports'), and it explicitly names the fields returned. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it is the template for create_notification, separating it from list_notifications and get_notification.

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 gives a clear use case: 'Use this as the template for create_notification.' It does not list alternative tools or exclusions, but for a schema-introspection tool with no direct sibling counterpart, this is sufficient contextual guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It signals a read-only operation through 'Get' and discloses the depth of the returned data by mentioning quality items and custom format scores. It does not cover error handling or authentication, but those are not critical for a simple getter.

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 with no filler. Every phrase adds useful information: the operation, the resource, the scope, and the included content.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states what is returned and the level of detail. A note about not-found behavior or a pointer to list_quality_profiles for summaries would make it fully complete, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 is only one parameter, the schema describes it as 'Quality profile id', and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one quality profile'), and adds the completeness qualifier 'in full' plus the contents ('every quality item and custom format score'). This clearly distinguishes it from list_quality_profiles and get_quality_profile_schema without needing to inspect either tool.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The contrast with list_quality_profiles is only implied by 'one' and 'in full', and no alternative tool is named. The agent must infer the intended selection context from the name and sibling list.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It conveys that this is a read-only template operation with no side effects: it returns a blank profile rather than mutating anything. For a zero-parameter schema getter, this is sufficient behavioral context, though it does not mention auth or rate limits.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the exact purpose and then gives the practical use case. No wasted words and no filler.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description says what will be returned (a blank quality profile with all qualities) and what to do with it (use it as the template for create_quality_profile). Nothing essential is missing.

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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters and does not add anything inaccurate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get a blank quality profile' with every quality Sonarr knows about. It also states its role as 'the template for create_quality_profile,' which clearly distinguishes it from get_quality_profile and list_quality_profiles by emphasizing the blank/template aspect.

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 implicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: when you need a blank quality profile to pass to create_quality_profile. It does not explicitly exclude retrieving existing profiles or list the alternative get_quality_profile, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer the correct selection.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It communicates that this is a read-only listing operation and clarifies scope and returned fields, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, filtering semantics, or any edge cases. The description is adequate but leaves meaningful behavioral details to the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.