diagnose_missing_media

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool reads multiple sources (metadata, history, download client queues) and produces a diagnosis, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose whether the tool performs any mutations (e.g., triggering searches, changing statuses), what the output format is, or whether it can take actions beyond diagnosis. The word 'Traces' suggests read-only, 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resources, 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 single-parameter diagnostic tool, the description is mostly complete. However, with no annotations and no output schema, an agent doesn't know whether the tool is read-only or may trigger actions, nor what the diagnosis result looks like. Given the tool's complexity (tracing through multiple systems), a bit more context about side effects or output 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% and the only parameter 'title' is described as 'The title of the media to diagnose.' The description adds the context that the title refers to a movie, which is slightly more specific than the schema's 'media.' This is a minor addition; the schema already carries the 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 ('Traces') and names the exact resources it inspects (Radarr metadata, history, active download client queues) and the goal (pinpoint why a movie is missing). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like check_movie_status or manage_stalled_downloads.

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 use case: when a movie is missing and the cause is unknown. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context of tracing through multiple sources makes the intended scenario clear. A small gap is not stating when to prefer check_movie_status or manage_stalled_downloads instead.

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