parse_release_title

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior and result (mapping to series/season/episodes and detected quality), but it does not state side effects, error conditions, whether it requires an existing series, or whether it is a pure local read-only operation. The name 'parse' implies no mutation, but that is not 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?

The entire description is one tightly worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and object immediately, and every clause adds meaningful detail about inputs and outputs. This is an ideal size for the tool's simplicity.

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 two optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description alone must guide invocation. It communicates the main result but omits practical details like whether title or path is required, what happens if both are absent, and the structure of the parsed result beyond the listed fields. For a simple utility this is adequate 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does mention both parameter concepts ('release title or file path'), aligning with title and path, but adds no additional nuance such as precedence when both are supplied, whether at least one is required, or format expectations beyond what the schema properties already say.

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 ('Parse'), a clear resource ('a release title or file path'), and the exact outputs ('series, season and episodes it maps to and the detected quality'). It also includes the valuable qualifier 'the way Sonarr does', which distinguishes this from other release-related tools like search_releases or grab_release.

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 a diagnostic/utility use case: when you have a release title or file path and want to know how Sonarr's parser would interpret it. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related tools, nor does it mention any alternative or exclusion conditions.

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