This MCP server provides an interface to Sonarr, Radarr, and Prowlarr for AI clients, offering structured data access, health monitoring, library analytics, configuration management, change simulations, and guarded write operations. Key capabilities include:
Health & System Info: Check overall health, system status, API versions, connectivity, and specific health messages for each app.
Configuration Reads: Retrieve quality profiles, custom formats, naming/media management settings, download clients, indexers, notifications, and other app configurations.
Library Data: List movies/series with their files, identify missing or cutoff-unmet items for both Radarr and Sonarr.
History & Queue: Access detailed grab/import/failed/deleted history, queue status, and blocklist entries.
Prowlarr Management: List, test, and retrieve stats/history for indexers; manage application sync targets.
Analytics: Analyze storage usage, codec/resolution/HDR/audio distributions, quality profile usage, custom format effectiveness, upgrade candidates, indexer performance (downloads, grabs, success rates), and growth trends.
Simulations: Dry-run the impact of changes to quality profiles, custom formats, cutoffs, scores, storage savings, upgrades, and codec strategies before applying them.
Backup & Diffusion: Create, list, and restore backups; generate diffs; preview or apply patches.
Write Operations: Mutate configurations with explicit confirmation (confirm: true) and often dryRun: false requirements. Includes updating profiles, formats, scores, and applying patches.
Reports: Generate focused reports on quality, storage, and tracker performance.
Pagination & Filtering: Most read tools support pagination (page, pageSize, cursor), date ranges, and field selection for efficient data retrieval and continuation of large queries.
Provides tools for managing movies, including health checks, configuration reads, library analytics, simulations, backups, diffs, reports, and guarded write/bulk operations.
Provides tools for managing TV series, including health checks, configuration reads, library analytics, simulations, backups, diffs, reports, and guarded write/bulk operations.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@servarr-analytics-mcp run health check on all apps"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
Servarr Analytics MCP is a Model Context Protocol server for Sonarr, Radarr, and Prowlarr. It gives AI clients a structured data interface for health checks, configuration reads, library analytics, simulations, backups, diffs, reports, and guarded write/bulk operations.
The MCP retrieves and aggregates data. The AI client analyzes the returned structured data and explains recommendations.
Hi, human here. I designed the architecture and used AI to implement this project. While I actively use it in my own homelab, I cannot provide any warranties or guarantees.
This software has not undergone a security audit and is not intended for direct exposure to public networks. Use it at your own risk, especially in security-sensitive or internet-facing environments.
Related MCP server: Sonarr & Radarr MCP Server
SONARR_URL=http://localhost:8989 \
SONARR_API_KEY=your-sonarr-api-key \
RADARR_URL=http://localhost:7878 \
RADARR_API_KEY=your-radarr-api-key \
PROWLARR_URL=http://localhost:9696 \
PROWLARR_API_KEY=your-prowlarr-api-key \
npx -y servarr-analytics-mcpAll diagnostics are written to stderr. stdout is reserved for MCP stdio protocol traffic.
docker run --rm -i \
-e SONARR_URL=http://host.docker.internal:8989 \
-e SONARR_API_KEY=your-sonarr-api-key \
-e RADARR_URL=http://host.docker.internal:7878 \
-e RADARR_API_KEY=your-radarr-api-key \
-e PROWLARR_URL=http://host.docker.internal:9696 \
-e PROWLARR_API_KEY=your-prowlarr-api-key \
ghcr.io/OWNER/servarr-analytics-mcp:latestReplace OWNER with the GitHub owner that publishes the image.
services:
servarr-analytics-mcp:
image: ghcr.io/OWNER/servarr-analytics-mcp:latest
stdin_open: true
environment:
SONARR_URL: http://sonarr:8989
SONARR_API_KEY: your-sonarr-api-key
RADARR_URL: http://radarr:7878
RADARR_API_KEY: your-radarr-api-key
PROWLARR_URL: http://prowlarr:9696
PROWLARR_API_KEY: your-prowlarr-api-key
volumes:
- servarr-analytics-backups:/app/.servarr-analytics-backups
volumes:
servarr-analytics-backups:{
"mcpServers": {
"servarr-analytics": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "servarr-analytics-mcp"],
"env": {
"SONARR_URL": "http://localhost:8989",
"SONARR_API_KEY": "your-sonarr-api-key",
"RADARR_URL": "http://localhost:7878",
"RADARR_API_KEY": "your-radarr-api-key",
"PROWLARR_URL": "http://localhost:9696",
"PROWLARR_API_KEY": "your-prowlarr-api-key"
}
}
}
}[mcp_servers.servarr-analytics]
command = "npx"
args = ["-y", "servarr-analytics-mcp"]
[mcp_servers.servarr-analytics.env]
SONARR_URL = "http://localhost:8989"
SONARR_API_KEY = "your-sonarr-api-key"
RADARR_URL = "http://localhost:7878"
RADARR_API_KEY = "your-radarr-api-key"
PROWLARR_URL = "http://localhost:9696"
PROWLARR_API_KEY = "your-prowlarr-api-key"Configure only the apps you want to expose. Each configured app requires both URL and API key.
Variable | Required | Description |
| optional | Sonarr base URL. |
| optional | Sonarr API key. |
| optional | Radarr base URL. |
| optional | Radarr API key. |
| optional | Prowlarr base URL. |
| optional | Prowlarr API key. |
| optional | API base path. Defaults to |
| optional | API base path. Defaults to |
| optional | API base path. Defaults to |
| optional | HTTP timeout. Defaults to |
| optional | Backup directory. Defaults to |
Do not commit API keys or real local URLs to a public repository.
The server registers all tools from the initial architecture plan:
Health: health_check_all, get_system_status, get_app_config, test_connection, get_api_version
Configuration: quality profiles, definitions, custom formats, language/delay profiles, tags, root folders, download clients, indexers, notifications, metadata profiles, naming, media management, disk, health
Library: Radarr movies/files/missing/cutoff unmet; Sonarr series/episodes/files/missing/cutoff unmet
History and queue: history, grab/import/failed/deleted history, queue, queue details, blocklist
Prowlarr: indexers, indexer status/stats/history/tests, download clients, applications
Analytics: library, quality, codec, resolution, HDR, audio, profile, custom format, storage, tracker/indexer analytics
Simulation: quality profile, custom format, cutoff, score, storage, upgrade, and codec strategy simulations
Backup and diff: create/list/restore backup, generate diff, validate patch, dry-run patch, apply patch
Write and bulk operations: quality profiles, custom formats, scores, quality definitions, delay profile, naming, media management, restrictions
Reports: quality, storage, tracker, failed downloads, monthly statistics, recommendations
Some analytics and simulations are best-effort aggregations over the Servarr API data available to the configured app.
Most read and analytics tools accept:
detail: summary, normal, verbose, or raw
page, pageSize, limit
from, to
sampleRecords
fields
groupBy
cursor
Defaults protect the client context window:
default pageSize: 100
max pageSize: 500
raw responses are capped
aggregation is performed inside the MCP where possible
Mutating tools require confirm: true. Restore, patch application, and bulk score updates also require dryRun: false.
Restore and patch operations are constrained by a safe endpoint allowlist. Collection updates such as quality profiles, custom formats, download clients, indexers, notifications, tags, and root folders must target a specific item id, for example qualityprofile/3. Singleton config endpoints such as config/naming and config/mediamanagement may be updated directly. A real backup restore also requires a specific app target.
bulk_update_scores targets one explicit quality profile through body.qualityProfileId and one or more explicit custom format ids in body.updates. Without dryRun: false, it returns the planned score changes and does not call Servarr.
Examples:
{
"app": "radarr",
"id": 3,
"body": {
"name": "HD-1080p"
},
"confirm": true
}Patch application:
{
"dryRun": false,
"confirm": true,
"operations": [
{
"app": "sonarr",
"method": "PUT",
"path": "qualityprofile/3",
"body": {
"id": 3,
"name": "HD-1080p"
}
}
]
}Always create a backup before write, restore, or bulk operations.
npm ci
npm run lint
npm test
npm run buildBuild output is written to dist/. The executable is dist/index.js.
Publishing is handled by GitHub Actions when a GitHub Release is published.
npm publishes servarr-analytics-mcp through npm trusted publishing/OIDC.
GHCR publishes ghcr.io/<owner>/servarr-analytics-mcp.
The release tag must match package.json, for example v0.1.2.
The workflow runs lint, tests, and build before publishing.
Before the first release:
Create the public GitHub repository.
Replace OWNER placeholders in docs/examples if desired.
Verify the npm package name is available.
Configure npm trusted publishing for .github/workflows/release.yml.
Publish a GitHub Release tagged v0.1.2.
Apply patch operations. Requires confirm true and dryRun false.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dryRun | No | ||
| confirm | No | ||
| operations | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description adds some transparency by stating required boolean values, implying mutation behavior with explicit confirmation. However, it does not detail side effects, error conditions, or reversibility.
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. It is appropriately short, though it could benefit from additional context without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description lacks crucial context such as return values, prerequisites, error handling, and the scope of the patch 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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning for 'confirm' and 'dryRun' by stating their required values. It does not explain the 'operations' parameter beyond what the schema defines.
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 'Apply patch operations', which is a verb+resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'dry_run_patch' and 'validate_patch', but does not explicitly differentiate itself.
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 specifies required parameter values ('confirm true and dryRun false'), which guides usage, but lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like dry_run_patch.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Count library items by audio codec.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Absent annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The single sentence only states the counting purpose, omitting critical details like read-only nature, pagination, parameter effects, or output format.
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 concise at one sentence, but it is too terse for a tool with 11 parameters and no schema descriptions. It adequately states the purpose but leaves significant gaps.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is highly incomplete. It does not cover parameter semantics, pagination, grouping, or return values.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and 11 parameters, the description fails to add any meaning beyond the parameter names. No parameter details are provided, leaving the agent to guess their roles.
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 'Count library items by audio codec' clearly states a specific verb, resource, and scope. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'codec_distribution' or 'library_audio_distribution', which may have overlapping functionality.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusion criteria. The agent receives no context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Average release size from history data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No behavioral traits are disclosed. The description does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires authentication, or any side effects. With zero annotations, the burden is entirely on the description, which completely fails to address 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?
The description is extremely short but at the cost of missing essential information. It does not achieve conciseness; it is under-specified. Every sentence should earn its place, but here one vague sentence is insufficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly inadequate. It fails to cover return format, parameter explanations, or any usage context, leaving the agent with almost no actionable information.
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 provides no guidance on any of the 11 parameters. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the agent has no help understanding the meaning or usage of parameters like 'to', 'app', 'from', 'detail', 'groupBy', etc.
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 'Average release size from history data' adds minimal context beyond the tool name. It is a noun phrase, not an action, and fails to specify what kind of history data or how the average is computed. While not completely tautological, it is vague and does not differentiate from siblings like 'grabs_by_indexer' or 'codec_distribution'.
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 usage guidelines are provided. The description gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, nor any exclusion criteria. The agent is left without context to decide appropriateness.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Bulk update custom format scores from body.updates. Requires confirm=true and dryRun=false.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| to | No | ||
| app | Yes | ||
| body | Yes | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| dryRun | No | ||
| fields | No | ||
| confirm | Yes | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It mentions the requirements but fails to explain what happens if confirm is false or dryRun is true (e.g., simulation vs execution). It also omits side effects like overwriting existing scores or irreversibility.
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, achieving conciseness. However, it sacrifices essential detail, making it somewhat under-specified rather than optimally 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 the tool's complexity (15 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the behavior of bulk updates, the required structure of the body, or typical usage patterns.
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?
With 15 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal value. It only mentions 'body.updates' without explaining its structure or the roles of other parameters like id, to, from, etc. The agent has insufficient information to construct valid requests.
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 does a 'Bulk update custom format scores from body.updates.' The verb 'bulk update' and resource 'custom format scores' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like update_custom_format_score (singular) and simulate_score_change.
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 specifies prerequisites ('Requires confirm=true and dryRun=false') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., update_custom_format_score, simulate_score_change). The context is clear but lacks exclusions or alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Clone a quality profile using the provided body. Requires confirm=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| to | No | ||
| app | Yes | ||
| body | Yes | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| dryRun | No | ||
| fields | No | ||
| confirm | Yes | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description only confirms that the operation requires a confirm flag but does not disclose destructive nature, auth needs, or 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?
Extremely brief (two sentences) but under-specified for a tool with 15 parameters. It sacrifices clarity for brevity.
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 15 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides minimal guidance for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.
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 0%. Description mentions body and confirm but adds no meaning beyond the schema. No explanation of the other 13 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?
Description clearly states it clones a quality profile using the body, distinguishing from create/update. However, it does not explain what 'body' contains or how cloning differs from creating.
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?
Mentions requirement confirm=true but no guidance on when to clone vs create or update. No alternatives listed despite many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Group history codec hints by indexer when available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, rate limits, or request effects. The description is insufficient to inform the agent about tool 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 sentence, which is concise but severely under-specified. It does not earn its place as it lacks key details, making it more of a placeholder than a helpful description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool complexity (11 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate for an agent to correctly use the tool. It provides no context on return values, pagination, or parameter roles.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention or clarify any parameters. With 11 parameters, the description fails to add meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent with no guidance on parameter usage.
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 'Group history codec hints by indexer when available' indicates the tool groups codec hints by indexer, but it is vague about what 'history codec hints' are and does not differentiate from siblings like 'codec_distribution' or 'language_by_indexer'. It provides a general sense but lacks specificity.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many similar sibling tools (e.g., 'codec_distribution', 'quality_by_indexer'), the description offers no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Count library items by video codec.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lacks behavioral context such as whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or requires authentication. It does not disclose any side effects or limitations. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden but fails to add transparency.
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, which is concise, but it is under-specified. It omits essential details such as parameter roles or output structure, making it too brief for a tool with 11 parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the parameters do, how results are returned, or how this tool relates to similar distribution 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?
With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter explanations in the description, the agent receives no guidance on the meaning or usage of the 11 parameters. The description adds no value beyond the raw parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Count library items by video codec' clearly states the verb (count) and resource (library items by video codec). It distinguishes from siblings like audio_distribution or hdr_distribution, which target different codec types. However, it could be more explicit about the output format.
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 use this tool versus alternatives like codec_by_indexer or storage_by_codec. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Find custom formats sharing equivalent specification counts and names.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It only says it finds formats sharing specs and names, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, requires authentication, supports pagination (despite pagination params), or what the output format is. This omission is significant for a tool with 11 parameters.
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, which is concise, but it lacks structure (e.g., separate sections for purpose, use cases, parameters) and could be more informative without being verbose.
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?
With 11 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is highly incomplete. It does not help the agent understand how to construct a valid request or interpret results, making it insufficient for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it provides zero information about any of the 11 parameters (e.g., 'to', 'app', 'from', 'page', etc.). The description does not add meaning beyond the parameter names 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?
The description states it finds 'custom formats sharing equivalent specification counts and names', which is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from siblings like 'duplicate_custom_formats' (likely exact duplicates) and 'get_custom_formats' (list all). However, 'equivalent specification counts' is slightly ambiguous.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies detection of potential conflicts but does not specify scenarios or provide exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Continue a paged query from a cursor produced by a previous tool response.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only mentions the cursor relationship but lacks details about whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or any error handling (e.g., expired cursor).
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 11-word sentence clearly stating the action and object, with no extraneous 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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose. However, it omits details on cursor expiration or behavior on invalid input, which would be helpful.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning by specifying the cursor is from a previous tool response, but does not detail format, validity constraints, or what happens with an invalid cursor.
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 'continue a paged query' and the resource 'cursor produced by a previous tool response'. It uniquely identifies the tool's purpose among many siblings that deal with querying and listing.
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 when a cursor is available from a previous tool response, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Create a local JSON backup of Servarr configuration endpoints.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Create a local JSON backup' without explaining if it overwrites existing backups, where the backup is stored, or what the return value is. This is insufficient 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 sentence, which is concise but lacks essential details. It achieves brevity at the cost of completeness, making it marginally acceptable.
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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description should explain the outcome (e.g., file path, success indication) and what 'configuration endpoints' encompasses. It fails to provide a complete picture, leaving the agent with ambiguities.
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 'app' is an enum of Servarr apps, but the description provides no explanation of its meaning or how to use it. With 0% schema coverage, the agent is left to guess that it selects the app to back up.
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 ('Create'), resource ('local JSON backup'), and scope ('Servarr configuration endpoints'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like list_backups and restore_backup, but could be more specific about which endpoints are included.
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 use this tool versus alternatives such as restore_backup or other backup-related operations. There is no mention of prerequisites, intended use cases, or 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.
Create a quality profile. Requires confirm=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| to | No | ||
| app | Yes | ||
| body | Yes | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| dryRun | No | ||
| fields | No | ||
| confirm | Yes | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states that confirm must be true, which implies an action requiring confirmation, but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, any side effects, permission needs, or what happens if confirm 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?
The description is extremely short (one sentence), which is concise but under-specified. It sacrifices essential information for brevity, making it ineffective for an AI agent to understand the tool's proper use.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (15 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to provide enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, such as what the body should contain or the effect of dryRun.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and 15 parameters, the description adds no meaning to the parameters. Only confirm is mentioned, and it is already defined in the schema as a const. The description fails to explain critical parameters like app, body, or the required confirm.
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 'Create a quality profile,' specifying the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like clone_quality_profile or update_quality_profile, leaving ambiguity about what 'create' entails compared to similar 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions a requirement (confirm=true) but does not explain use cases, prerequisites, or situations where other tools would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Count matched custom formats in library files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'count matched', but does not specify if the operation is read-only, whether it requires authentication, or if it supports pagination. The behavior beyond counting is opaque.
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, which is concise but lacks necessary detail. It is not verbose, but the brevity comes at the cost of completeness, making it less helpful.
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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain return values, filtering, grouping, or pagination, leaving the agent with insufficient 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 0%, and the description provides no details about any of the 11 parameters. Parameters like 'app', 'to', 'from', 'detail', 'fields', 'groupBy' remain unexplained, forcing the agent to guess their meanings.
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 verb 'count' and resource 'matched custom formats in library files', which clearly indicates the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from sibling 'custom_format_misses' which would count unmatched. However, it could be more explicit about what qualifies as a 'hit'.
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 use this tool versus alternatives like 'custom_format_misses' or other custom format tools. The description does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List configured custom formats not seen in library files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description lacks behavioral details such as pagination, filtering, sorting, or what 'not seen' means operationally. It does not disclose any side effects or constraints.
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 fluff, but it is too brief given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no guidance). It could be expanded with essential context without becoming verbose.
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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only covers the high-level purpose, leaving significant gaps in parameter usage, return format, and behavioral 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?
The input schema has 11 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any parameter usage or semantics. The description adds no value beyond the raw 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 (list), the resource (custom formats), and the scope (not seen in library files). It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like custom_format_hits and unused_custom_formats.
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 finding configured but unused custom formats, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., custom_format_hits or unused_custom_formats). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite info.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Group cutoff-unmet items by quality profile when available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions grouping. It does not state read-only nature, pagination, filtering behavior, or whether items are counted or listed.
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?
Extremely concise (8 words) but at the expense of missing critical information. It is not well-structured for quick comprehension of functionality.
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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse. It fails to explain what 'cutoff-unmet items' are, how grouping works, or what the output contains.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning to any of the 11 parameters. No parameter names, types, or purposes are explained.
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 (group) and the resource (cutoff-unmet items by quality profile). It is specific enough to distinguish from many sibling tools that focus on other aggregations or views.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'quality_profile_usage' or 'profile_overlap'. No conditions for use 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.
Delete a quality profile by id. Requires confirm=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| to | No | ||
| app | Yes | ||
| body | Yes | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| dryRun | No | ||
| fields | No | ||
| confirm | Yes | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses destructive action and confirmation requirement, but with no annotations, the description should provide more context (e.g., irreversibility, success/error behavior). It meets a minimal standard.
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?
Single sentence with no fluff. Concise and to the point.
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 15 parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. Fails to explain most parameters, expected return, error states, or permanence of 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?
Schema coverage is 0%; description only indirectly addresses 'id' and 'confirm'. The other 13 parameters, many seemingly irrelevant (e.g., app, body, page), are unexplained. Adds little beyond schema constraints.
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?
Clearly states verb 'delete' and resource 'quality profile', with identifier 'id'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like create, update, clone, and get.
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?
Mentions requirement 'confirm=true', which is a precondition. However, no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, and no warning about destructive nature beyond the confirm requirement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Sum history download volume by indexer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states the aggregation action but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, any side effects, pagination behavior, or output format. This is insufficient for an 11-parameter 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 extremely concise (6 words), but conciseness comes at the expense of completeness. For a tool with many parameters and siblings, the brevity is under-specification, not efficiency.
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 11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many similar sibling tools, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain the output, filtering options, or what 'volume' refers to, leaving the agent without sufficient 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 0%, and the description adds no parameter information. With 11 parameters including enums ('app', 'detail') and filters ('from', 'to', 'page', etc.), the absence of any parameter clarification severely impedes correct invocation.
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 ('Sum') and resource ('history download volume by indexer'), clearly indicating aggregation by indexer. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'grabs_by_indexer' or 'failed_downloads_by_indexer', which are similarly named and might confuse selection.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many siblings (e.g., 'grabs_by_indexer', 'success_rate_by_indexer'), the description fails to provide context for 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.
Show patch operations that would be applied.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dryRun | No | ||
| confirm | No | ||
| operations | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description implies read-only behavior ('show'), but it does not explicitly state that no modifications occur. Lack of details on side effects, authorization, or error handling leaves some ambiguity.
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?
Single sentence of 7 words is concise, but lacks essential details that would justify its brevity. It could be expanded to include parameter context without becoming verbose.
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 minimal description, the tool's behavior and return format are unclear. Missing information about what 'show' produces (e.g., list of operations, diff). Not complete for effective use.
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 no information about the three parameters (dryRun, confirm, operations). Despite 0% schema coverage, the description does not explain their purpose, defaults, or constraints, especially the 'confirm' parameter with const: true.
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 'Show patch operations that would be applied' clearly indicates the tool displays a preview of patch operations without applying them. However, it does not explicitly state it is a dry-run simulation, relying on the tool name. Differentiates from siblings like apply_patch, but could be more precise.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like apply_patch or validate_patch. The description does not indicate prerequisite steps, best practices, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Find custom formats with duplicate names.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only says 'find' without stating if it's read-only, what data is returned, or any side effects. 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?
Single sentence is too short and lacks structure. It is under-specified rather than concise, omitting crucial 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?
With no output schema, no annotations, and 11 undocumented parameters, the description is grossly incomplete for agent decision-making.
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?
Description provides no parameter explanations. Schema has 11 parameters with 0% coverage; terms like 'to', 'from', 'cursor' are unexplained. Agent cannot infer usage.
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?
Description states 'Find custom formats with duplicate names' – a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'conflicting_custom_formats' or 'get_custom_formats', so clarity is diminished.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., conflicting_custom_formats). No context for prerequisites or expected results.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Find repeated grabs with the same download id or title.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations present, so description carries full burden. It only states the basic purpose, omitting any behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, destructive, requires specific permissions, pagination behavior, or output format. This is insufficient for a tool with 11 parameters.
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 extremely brief (one sentence) but lacks structure and critical information. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise, sacrificing completeness for brevity.
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?
With 11 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide adequate context. The agent has no understanding of filtering, pagination, detail levels, or field selection. Severely incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameter meaning. It mentions 'download id or title' but these are not actual parameter names. The 11 parameters (to, app, from, page, etc.) are left completely unexplained.
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 'Find' and the resource 'repeated grabs' with specific criteria (same download id or title). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_grab_history' or 'download_volume_by_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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_grab_history' or 'continuing_query'. No mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context for effective use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Estimate savings candidates from large non-HEVC files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, or what the tool actually computes. With 11 parameters, more context is needed.
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, which is concise but lacks necessary detail. It is not front-loaded with critical 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?
Given 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how parameters like 'groupBy' or 'sampleRecords' affect the output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the 11 parameters. Parameters like 'to', 'app', 'from', 'cursor' are unexplained, leaving the agent guessing.
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 tool estimates savings from large non-HEVC files, which is a specific task. However, 'savings candidates' is vague and does not distinguish from sibling tools like simulate_storage_savings.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Count failed downloads by indexer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'count failed downloads by indexer', omitting that the tool likely returns aggregated data, uses pagination, or is read-only. No side effects or limitations mentioned.
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?
Extremely concise at 3 words, but severely under-specified for 11 parameters and no annotations. Concision is not valuable when it sacrifices essential 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?
Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations) and many siblings, the description is completely inadequate. The agent cannot determine how to invoke the tool correctly or interpret results.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage for 11 parameters, the description adds no parameter explanations. The phrase 'by indexer' hints at grouping but does not correspond to any explicit parameter (e.g., 'groupBy' or 'indexer'). The agent is left guessing parameter meanings.
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 tool counts failed downloads by indexer, which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from closely related sibling tools like 'failed_history' or 'report_failed_downloads', so it loses a point.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'failed_history' or 'success_rate_by_indexer'. No context on prerequisites or cases where the tool is inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Compare a backup against current Servarr configuration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app | No | ||
| backupFile | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a non-destructive comparison operation, but it does not disclose the output format, whether the tool is read-only, required permissions, or behavior on invalid input. With no annotations provided, the description fails to fully cover behavioral traits.
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, efficient but insufficiently informative. While it avoids fluff, it omits critical details such as parameter roles and behavioral context, reducing its utility for agent decision-making.
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 lack of output schema and the richness of sibling tools (simulate, patch, backup), the description is too minimal. It provides no guidance on interpreting the diff, how it integrates into a workflow, or safety considerations, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely requires nuanced use.
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 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the parameters ('backupFile', 'app'). The agent receives no guidance on what values to provide or their meaning, making parameter usage entirely reliant on schema types and names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool compares a backup against the current Servarr configuration, employing a specific verb ('compare') and resource ('backup'). This uniquely distinguishes it from siblings like create_backup, restore_backup, apply_patch, and various simulation tools.
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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., apply_patch, dry_run_patch). There is no mention of prerequisites or typical workflow, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return version details from system status for one configured app.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | Yes | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description only says 'from system status' without disclosing side effects, auth needs, or rate limits. Minimal behavioral context.
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?
Single sentence, no redundancy. Efficiently conveys the core action.
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?
With 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to address optional parameters like pagination or detail levels.
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 0%, yet the description adds no information about any of the 11 parameters. The required 'app' is the only clue, but its enum values are not explained.
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 it returns version details from system status for one app, which is specific. It distinguishes from many sibling get_* tools, though it could be confused with get_system_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 implies this is for a single configured app but does not provide explicit when-to-use or alternatives among many similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return host-level configuration for one configured app.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | Yes | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided and description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, authentication needs, effect on system). Minimal info for a get 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?
Description is a single sentence, which is concise, but under-specified given the tool's complexity (11 parameters). Not appropriately sized for the information needed.
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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks essential details (e.g., what host-level configuration includes, how parameters filter/control output). Incomplete for effective tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and description adds no meaning to parameters. With 11 parameters, the description should compensate but does not.
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?
Description clearly states it returns host-level configuration for one configured app, specifying verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like get_applications which return a list of apps.
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 on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, no prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. Agent cannot differentiate usage context from description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List Prowlarr application sync targets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations present; description fails to disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic list action. No mention of safety, 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?
Single sentence, no fluff, but lacks substance. It is concise but under-informative.
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?
No output schema and minimal description; does not explain what is returned or how the 10 parameters affect results. Incomplete for a tool with this 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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter meaning. The 10 parameters (to, from, page, etc.) are entirely unexplained.
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?
Clear verb 'List' and resource 'Prowlarr application sync targets', but does not differentiate from many similar siblings like get_indexers or get_download_clients.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return blocklist records.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | Yes | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The phrase 'Return blocklist records' is too vague; it does not indicate whether the tool is read-only, what effects it has, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. This is a critical 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 short sentence, which is concise, but it sacrifices completeness. Every part of the description should earn its place; here, it is too brief to convey necessary information, resulting in under-specification rather than proper conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of 11 parameters and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool does with the parameters, what the output looks like, or how to use it effectively. The sibling list provides no differentiation. This description is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, the description does not mention any parameters or their meanings. Although parameter names like 'app', 'page', 'limit' are somewhat self-explanatory, others like 'cursor', 'fields', 'groupBy' are not explained. This provides minimal semantic help.
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 says 'Return blocklist records,' which clearly states the verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish the tool from many sibling 'get' tools like get_history or get_failed_history, and it does not specify the context or scope (e.g., which app). This is minimally clear but lacks 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention filtering, pagination, required parameters, or typical use cases. Without explicit context, an agent cannot determine when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List custom formats.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | Yes | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'list', implying a read operation, but lacks details on pagination, filtering, side effects, or permissions. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full 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 extremely short (one sentence) but at the cost of completeness. It fails to add any value beyond the tool's name and title, making it merely a repetition rather than a helpful elaboration. For a tool with 11 parameters and many siblings, more detail is needed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly inadequate. It provides no context about the returned data, filtering, or how to use the parameters effectively, making it nearly useless for an AI 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 input schema has 11 parameters with 0% coverage (no descriptions in the schema), but the description adds no information about any parameter. It does not explain meaning, format, or usage of parameters like 'to', 'from', 'detail', 'fields', etc., leaving the agent without guidance.
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 'List custom formats' clearly states the action and resource, but it is essentially a tautology with the name and title. It does not distinguish this tool from many sibling tools related to custom formats (e.g., custom_format_hits, duplicate_custom_formats, update_custom_format).
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 use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context for use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction among many similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List delay profiles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | Yes | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits like authentication, pagination, rate limits, or side effects. The description is too brief to be 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?
The description is extremely concise (two words), but under-specification makes it ineffective for an 11-parameter tool. It is not front-loaded with useful 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?
The tool has a complex input schema with 11 parameters and no output schema, yet the description gives zero additional context about usage, parameters, or return values. It is completely incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation of the 11 parameters. The tool name and description add no meaning beyond the schema itself.
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?
Description clearly states 'List delay profiles' which is a verb+resource, matching the tool name. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_delay_profile'. However, it lacks specificity about what delay profiles are or how they are listed.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it, which is needed given the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return deleted history records.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | Yes | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination behavior, permission requirements, or side effects. The description is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.
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, but it is under-specified and does not earn its place by adding useful information beyond the name. It is too brief to be helpful.
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 complexity of 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not address pagination, filtering, or what 'deleted history' means in the application 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 0% for 11 parameters, and the description provides no explanation of any parameter. The user gets no help understanding 'app', 'from', 'to', 'page', 'limit', 'cursor', 'detail', 'fields', 'groupBy', 'pageSize', or 'sampleRecords'.
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 'Return deleted history records' states the basic action and resource, but it does not differentiate from sibling history tools like get_failed_history, get_grab_history, etc. It is clear but lacks specificity to distinguish it.
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 use this tool versus similar history tools. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return disk space information.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | Yes | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations present; description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, auth requirements, or response behavior. The single sentence is insufficient.
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?
Extremely concise (one sentence) but lacks structure and substance. The brevity undercut by having zero useful detail beyond 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?
Given 11 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is grossly incomplete. Agent cannot know how to invoke 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 has 11 parameters (1 required) with 0% description coverage. Description adds no information about parameters like 'app', 'detail', or 'cursor'. Agent has no guidance on valid values or usage.
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?
Description states the tool returns disk space information, which matches the name. However, it lacks specificity and does not differentiate from siblings like 'library_storage_stats' or 'storage_usage'.
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 on when to use this tool versus similar tools like 'get_system_status' or 'storage_by_codec'. No use cases or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List download clients.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | Yes | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'List download clients' without mentioning that it reads data, requires authentication, or any side effects. This is insufficient.
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 extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. Every sentence should add value; this single sentence does not provide enough information for the agent.
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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-line description is woefully incomplete. Critical context about pagination, filtering, and response format 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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description adds no meaning to parameters. It fails to explain the required 'app' parameter or any others like 'detail', 'page', etc.
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 'list' and the resource 'download clients', which is specific. However, it lacks any contrasting details to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_applications' or 'get_indexers', so it's not 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return failed history records.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | Yes | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states a generic 'return'. It does not mention the required 'app' parameter, pagination, filtering capabilities, or response format.
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 extremely short but under-specified. Conciseness should be paired with informativeness; here it sacrifices all useful 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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is vastly incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of failed history, parameter usage, pagination, or result 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the 11 parameters. Agents have no clue what parameters like 'from', 'to', 'page', 'cursor', or 'detail' represent.
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 'Return failed history records' essentially restates the tool name 'get_failed_history', adding no new information. It fails to explain what constitutes a 'failed' history record or how this differs from sibling tools like get_history, get_grab_history, etc.
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 use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return grab history records.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | Yes | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and only a terse description, behavioral traits like read-only, pagination, filtering behavior, or authentication needs are not disclosed. The description provides no insight beyond the basic action, falling short for a tool with 11 parameters.
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 extremely short (five words), but this brevity results in under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It fails to front-load critical information or earn its place, as it omits essential 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?
Given the 11 parameters, no output schema, and numerous sibling history tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover return format, pagination behavior, filtering capabilities, or how grab history differs from other history types.
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 11 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning beyond 'return records.' It does not explain any parameter's purpose, format, or constraints, leaving the agent to guess despite the complex 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 'Return grab history records,' which clearly identifies the resource (grab history) and action (return), but it lacks detail on what constitutes 'grab history' and does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_history, get_failed_history, etc. The purpose is somewhat vague and open to interpretation.
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 use this tool versus alternatives such as get_history or get_failed_history. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear direction for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return health messages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | Yes | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Return health messages' with no mention of side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what constitutes a health message. Completely inadequate.
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, which is concise but at the expense of essential information. It is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. Front-loading is irrelevant when there is no substantive 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?
With 11 parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description is extremely incomplete. It fails to provide any context about the return value, filtering, or pagination. The tool cannot be used effectively based on this description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain any of the 11 parameters, including required 'app' and others like 'detail', 'page', 'limit'. Without parameter meaning, the agent cannot correctly populate the input 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 'Return health messages' states the verb and resource but is too vague. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'health_check_all', which likely also returns health messages. A more specific description is needed.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description fails to help the agent decide when to invoke this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return history records with optional paging and date filters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | Yes | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'with optional paging and date filters' but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it cover authorization or 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?
The description is a single sentence, but it is under-specified for a tool with 11 parameters and many siblings. It sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it insufficient.
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 complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, many siblings), the description is extremely incomplete. It does not explain the nature of the history, the meaning of key parameters, or the return format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'paging and date filters,' while the schema includes 11 parameters (e.g., detail, fields, groupBy) with no explanation. This adds minimal value.
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 'Return history records' which is a clear verb and resource, but it is vague as to which type of history (e.g., app-specific) and does not distinguish from sibling tools like get_grab_history or get_import_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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return import/download-folder-imported history records.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | Yes | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states 'return records' but omits key traits like pagination behavior, required app parameter, or response structure. The tool has 11 parameters, yet no behavioral context is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence. However, it lacks structure and fails to front-load critical information, such as the required parameter or tool purpose differentiation.
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?
With 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides minimal guidance. It doesn't address pagination, filtering, or result interpretation, making it insufficient 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameter meaning or usage. For example, the required 'app' enum and optional filters like 'from', 'to', 'detail', and pagination params are left entirely unexplained.
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 specifies 'import/download-folder-imported history records', clarifying the resource. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_history' or 'get_failed_history', which also return history records.
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 use this tool versus alternatives. Given sibling tools for different history types (e.g., failed, grab, deleted), this omission makes selection difficult.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return one Prowlarr indexer by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| to | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
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 only states the basic retrieval function, omitting any details on idempotency, side effects, authentication needs, or error handling. The optional pagination and filtering parameters in the schema are not addressed.
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 concise at one sentence, clearly stating the core function. However, it is overly minimal and could be expanded to include key guidance without becoming verbose. It effectively communicates the primary purpose but lacks supporting context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, many siblings), the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to cover parameter semantics, return format, error scenarios, or usage context, forcing the agent to infer crucial 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 0%, yet the description only hints at the 'id' parameter. None of the 10 optional parameters (like 'to', 'from', 'page', 'limit', 'cursor', 'detail', 'fields', etc.) are explained, leaving the agent without guidance on their purpose or usage.
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 'Return', the resource 'one Prowlarr indexer', and the method 'by id'. This is specific and distinguishes it from the sibling 'get_indexers' which would return multiple.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_indexers' or other sibling tools. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return Prowlarr indexer history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It only states it returns history, but does not disclose pagination, filtering, required authentication, or other behavioral traits. This is insufficient.
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, which is concise but at the expense of providing necessary details. It does not waste words, but it does not earn its place either as it lacks substance.
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 complexity of 10 parameters (many for pagination and filtering), no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to explain how to use the tool or interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 10 parameters. It adds no semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides (which itself has no descriptions).
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 tool returns Prowlarr indexer history, which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like get_history, get_grab_history, etc., which are also history-related but likely with different scopes.
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 the many alternative history tools. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List indexers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | Yes | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and a bare description, the tool's behavioral traits are not disclosed. The description omits critical details such as pagination behavior, required parameters beyond 'app', or any side effects. The agent cannot infer safety or performance characteristics.
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?
At only two words, the description is extremely terse. While concise is good, this brevity sacrifices necessary detail for a tool with 11 parameters. It is under-specified rather than efficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to describe pagination, filtering, field selection, or any grouping behavior, making it nearly impossible for an agent to use the tool correctly without prior knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to parameters. While the schema provides types and enums for 'app' and 'detail', the semantics of 'to', 'from', 'cursor', etc., are unexplained, leaving the agent to guess their purpose.
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 'List indexers' clearly states the verb and resource, making the basic purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_indexer' which likely retrieves a single indexer, leaving ambiguity about scope.
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 use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_indexer' or other related tools. The agent receives no context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return Prowlarr indexer statistics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Return' implying a read operation, but omits details about pagination, filtering, or system impact. For a tool with 10 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is insufficient.
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, which is concise but overly brief for a tool with 10 parameters. It front-loads the purpose but fails to include necessary detail, making it under-informative.
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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what statistics are returned, how filtering works, or what the response format is. The agent cannot reliably use this tool based solely on the description.
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 10 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description adds no information about any parameter's purpose, format, or constraints. This leaves the agent without guidance on how to use parameters like 'to', 'from', 'detail', etc.
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 'Return' and specifies the resource 'Prowlarr indexer statistics', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_indexer' (individual indexer) and 'get_indexer_status' (status). However, it could be more precise about what 'statistics' entails.
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 like 'get_indexer_status' or other statistics tools. There is no context about use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return Prowlarr indexer status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it provides none. The input schema suggests list/pagination parameters (page, limit, cursor), implying a list response, yet the description says 'status' singular, which may mislead. No mention of side effects, permissions, 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?
At 6 words, the description is too short and omits critical information. While conciseness is valued, this lacks essential context for a 10-parameter 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?
Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, many sibling tools, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It fails to cover the tool's scope, return format, or relationship to other 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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the 10 parameters. Parameters like 'to', 'from', 'detail' (with enum values), 'fields', 'groupBy' remain unexplained, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema, which lacks descriptions.
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 'Return Prowlarr indexer status' is essentially a tautology of the tool name and does not clarify whether it returns status for all indexers or a single one, nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like get_indexer or get_indexer_stats.
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 use this tool versus the many sibling tools, such as get_indexer_history or get_indexer_stats. The user has no context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List language profiles when supported by the app.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | Yes | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
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 not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination handling, or authentication requirements. The description is too 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?
While very concise, the single sentence is underspecified. It omits crucial information about parameters and behavior, making it insufficient for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.
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 high parameter count (11) and zero schema description coverage, the description is severely incomplete. No output schema is provided, and the description fails to convey essential usage 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 0%, yet the description adds no meaning for the 11 parameters. It fails to explain the required 'app' parameter or the optional ones like 'page', 'limit', 'detail', which are present 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?
The description clearly states the tool lists language profiles, which aligns with the name and title. It adds context by noting that this is only when supported by the app, which is useful but does not distinguish from similar tools like get_quality_profiles.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_quality_profiles or get_delay_profiles. No mention of prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return media management configuration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | Yes | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Return...' without confirming it is read-only, safe, or what the data includes. The agent cannot infer side effects or data volume from this description.
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, direct sentence with no verbosity. However, it sacrifices informative value for brevity, which reduces effectiveness in context.
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?
With 11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many siblings, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to provide a minimal mental model of what 'media management configuration' entails.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about any of the 11 parameters. Agents get zero guidance on what 'app', 'detail', 'from', 'to', etc., mean.
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 'Return media management configuration,' which clearly identifies the verb and resource. However, given many sibling config getters (e.g., get_app_config, get_naming_config), it does not differentiate what makes this media management specific.
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 usage context is provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool over alternatives like get_app_config or get_naming_config, nor any prerequisites or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List metadata profiles when supported by the app.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | Yes | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'List metadata profiles' implying a read-only operation, but no details on authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior, or side effects. The parameter schema includes pagination and filtering, but the description does not address them.
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 very concise (one short sentence), which is good, but it lacks necessary detail for a tool with many parameters and sibling tools. It is front-loaded but insufficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what metadata profiles are, how they relate to other profile types, or what the parameters control.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no information about any of the 11 parameters. The required 'app' parameter is not explained, nor are optional parameters like pagination or detail level.
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 specifies a verb 'List' and a resource 'metadata profiles', but does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_quality_profiles or get_language_profiles. The condition 'when supported by the app' adds some context but is vague.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_quality_profiles or get_language_profiles. No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return naming configuration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | Yes | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description must disclose behavior. 'Return naming configuration' implies a read operation but offers no details on side effects, authentication, rate limits, or result pagination. Minimal behavioral context.
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?
Single sentence is concise but overly brief. While it avoids verbosity, it sacrifices meaningful content. Every word earns its place, but not enough information is conveyed.
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?
Tool has many parameters and no output schema, yet description lacks sufficient detail to enable correct invocation. Agent cannot determine required inputs or expected output format from this description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and description adds zero parameter information. With 11 parameters, including enums and complex fields like 'cursor' and 'fields', the agent has no guidance on how to use them 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?
Description states 'Return naming configuration' which is a verb+resource but lacks specificity. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_quality_profiles' or 'get_app_config', leaving the agent uncertain about what a naming configuration entails.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_media_management_config'). No exclusions or context provided, forcing the agent to rely solely on the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List notifications.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | Yes | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or rate limits. The schema hints at pagination parameters, but the description omits this, leaving the agent uninformed about behavior beyond a simple list.
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 extremely concise with one sentence, which is efficient but at the cost of completeness. It does not waste words, but it fails to provide necessary context. Conciseness alone does not make it effective.
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?
With 11 parameters, no output schema, and no description of behavior or parameters, the description is severely incomplete. The agent cannot effectively use this tool without additional information from the schema, which is not explained. This is insufficient 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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds no meaning to any of the 11 parameters. The parameters are complex (enums, pagination, filtering), but the description does not explain their purpose or how they affect the result. This is a critical gap.
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 'List notifications' clearly states the verb and resource, but it is minimal and does not differentiate from many sibling tools that also list entities (e.g., get_history, get_blocklist). The purpose is clear but lacks specificity.
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 use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The description is too brief to inform usage decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List quality definitions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | Yes | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavior. The word 'list' implies read-only, but no details on pagination, filtering, or side effects are given. The tool's schema includes 11 parameters affecting behavior, yet the description ignores them. Score 2 for minimal transparency.
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?
While the description is concise (3 words), it sacrifices necessary information. For a tool with 11 parameters and no schema descriptions, a single phrase is insufficient. True conciseness balances brevity with completeness; here it fails to earn 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?
Given the tool's complexity (11 params, no output schema, numerous siblings), the description is severely inadequate. It does not explain what quality definitions are, how they differ from quality profiles, or what the response contains. Score 1 for missing essential 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 0%, and the description adds no parameter information. It does not explain the purpose or constraints of any of the 11 parameters, such as 'app', 'detail', or 'cursor'. This is a critical gap, warranting a score of 1.
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 verb 'list' and resource 'quality definitions', providing a basic purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_quality_profile' or 'get_quality_profiles', which may cause confusion. A 3 is appropriate as it is not a tautology but lacks sibling distinction.
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 usage guidelines are provided. The description offers no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, resulting in a score of 2.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return a single quality profile by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| to | No | ||
| app | Yes | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic operation. No mention of side effects, permissions, or error handling is included.
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 is front-loaded but overly minimal. It is concise at the expense of necessary detail, making it less helpful than it could 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?
Given the complexity (12 parameters, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It omits return value format, pagination behavior, and error scenarios, leaving an agent without sufficient 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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the 12 parameters beyond the schema's type and enum constraints. It does not explain the purpose of optional parameters like page, limit, or 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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'single quality profile by id', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_quality_profiles (plural) and mutation tools (clone, delete, update).
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 use this tool versus alternatives such as get_quality_profiles. The description lacks context for usage decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List quality profiles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | Yes | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'List quality profiles' without mentioning pagination, filtering, sorting, or response format. The input schema implies pagination parameters (page, limit, cursor), but the description does not explain this 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 extremely short (three words) and front-loaded, but it is too brief to be useful. Conciseness should not sacrifice essential information; here, it lacks substance for a tool with many parameters and no 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?
Given the tool has 11 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not describe what a quality profile is, the expected output, or how to use pagination parameters, leaving the agent without necessary context to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no information about any of the 11 parameters. It does not mention the required 'app' parameter or optional ones like 'page', 'limit', 'detail', etc. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 'List quality profiles' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (quality profiles). Among many sibling tools like get_quality_profile, create_quality_profile, etc., it uniquely identifies itself as a listing operation, differentiating it from singular get or mutation tools.
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. For example, it does not mention that 'get_quality_profile' retrieves a specific profile, nor does it explain scenarios or prerequisites for using this list operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return queue records.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | Yes | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It provides zero information about side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or response behavior. The three-word description is utterly insufficient.
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 extremely short, but conciseness requires informative efficiency. Here, it is under-specified, failing to earn its place by omitting critical details. A single sentence without substance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the contextual completeness is severely lacking. The agent has no idea what the queue represents, what fields are returned, pagination behavior, or how to use the numerous parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 11 parameters are explained in the description. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's raw property names, leaving the agent to guess parameter semantics (e.g., what 'to' and 'from' represent).
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 'Return queue records' is a tautology of the tool name and title, providing no differentiation from siblings like 'get_queue_details'. It vaguely identifies the resource but lacks specificity.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_queue_details' or other query tools. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return detailed queue records.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | Yes | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it says nothing beyond returning records. It omits pagination, filtering behavior, performance implications, and whether it is read-only or mutating.
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 under-informative sentence. While concise, it sacrifices necessary detail, making it more under-specified than 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?
Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is critically incomplete. It fails to cover return values, pagination, filtering, or any behavioral aspects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it provides no parameter information. All 11 parameters, including the required 'app', are left completely unexplained.
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 verb 'Return' and resource 'detailed queue records', which is clear but generic. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_queue', and the title is nearly identical, making it a near-tautology.
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 use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess its appropriate use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List root folders.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | Yes | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the terse description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, authentication requirements, or return format. The description offers minimal transparency about the tool's 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 sentence, which is concise but excessively terse for a tool with many parameters. It is front-loaded but lacks substance, making it under-specified rather than efficiently 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?
Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It provides no context about return values, pagination, filtering, or behavior, making it inadequate for agent use.
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 11 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain any parameters, not even the required 'app' parameter. This is a critical gap, as the agent has no guidance on how to use the parameters effectively.
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 ('List') and the resource ('root folders'), which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not define what 'root folders' are in the context of Sonarr, Radarr, Prowlarr, and it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_blocklist' or 'get_history' but the unique name helps distinguish it.
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 use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The description lacks any usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return Servarr system status for one configured app.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | Yes | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the basic purpose and fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or whether the endpoint is a simple fetch or a list with cursor support. The many parameters are unexplained.
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 very concise (one sentence), but it is too short to be informative. While it front-loads the purpose, it omits critical details, making it insufficient.
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 complexity (11 parameters, pagination fields, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the input schema's richness or what the output contains.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to any parameter. The only parameter hinted at is 'app', but the other 10 parameters (to, from, page, limit, etc.) remain completely unexplained.
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 'Return Servarr system status for one configured app', which specifies a verb and resource. However, it is vague about what 'system status' includes and the many parameters (pagination fields) suggest it might be a list endpoint rather than a simple status check, causing 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?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_health' or 'get_disk_space', nor does it specify when to use this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List tags.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | Yes | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List tags' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, return format, or any side effects. Given the schema includes pagination parameters, the description should mention that results may be paginated.
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 concise (two words), but it is under-specified. Important information about parameters, usage, and behavior is missing. The brevity comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what tags are, how they relate to the 'app' parameter, what the response contains, or any constraints. An agent lacks sufficient information to use this 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 input schema has 11 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description 'List tags' adds no meaning to any parameter. It does not explain the required 'app' parameter or the optional pagination fields like 'page', 'limit', or 'cursor'. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 'List tags' clearly states the verb (list) and resource (tags), matching the tool name and title. However, it does not differentiate this from other sibling tools like 'get_applications' or 'get_custom_formats', which also list resources.
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. With 11 parameters and no context, an agent cannot determine when this tool is appropriate or what prerequisites are needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Count grab events by indexer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency, but it only states 'Count grab events by indexer'. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, paginated, or requires permissions, nor does it explain the type of output (aggregated counts vs raw data). The parameters suggest aggregation but the description does not confirm.
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 extremely concise (one sentence), but it is under-specified and fails to provide necessary detail. While it front-loads the purpose, it omits critical information about parameters and usage, making it insufficient for effective tool selection and invocation.
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 complexity of 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'grab events' are, how the count is performed, or what the response format looks like. The tool is fully dependent on its name and title for understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions are provided in the schema, and the tool description offers no information about the 11 parameters. The description does not explain what each parameter does, so the agent has no guidance on how to use them 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 'Count grab events by indexer' clearly states the action (counting grab events) and the grouping dimension (by indexer). It is specific about what the tool does, but does not distinguish it from siblings like 'failed_downloads_by_indexer' or 'download_volume_by_indexer' which also count by 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many similar sibling tools, such as 'failed_downloads_by_indexer' or 'download_volume_by_indexer'. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Count library items by HDR/dynamic range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description only states the basic action. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the output format is, or any side effects. The agent is left guessing about 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 concise (one sentence) but severely underspecified for a tool with 11 parameters. Conciseness without necessary detail is not effective; structure is minimal.
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 high complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain output, parameter roles, or usage scenarios, leaving the agent without sufficient context 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the 11 parameters. The agent has no insight into how parameters like 'to', 'app', 'from', 'fields', etc., affect the tool's behavior.
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 ('Count') and resource ('library items by HDR/dynamic range'), but the scope is ambiguous given sibling 'library_hdr_distribution' exists. It does not differentiate between these two similarly named tools.
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 use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, which is critical given the large number of sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Check status and health for every configured Servarr app.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the tool is read-only, whether it requires authentication, or any potential side effects. For a health check, it's likely non-destructive, but this is not confirmed.
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?
While the description is short, it is under-informative. It lacks crucial details about parameters and behavior, making it insufficient for an AI agent to use correctly. Every sentence should add value, but this single sentence is too vague.
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 complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the output looks like, how parameters affect the result, or define 'Servarr app'. The tool demands far more 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?
The description fails to explain any of the 10 parameters. Parameters like 'page', 'limit', 'cursor' suggest pagination, contradicting the idea of checking 'every' app. No parameter semantics are provided despite 0% schema description 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 clearly states the action (check), resource (status and health), and scope (every configured Servarr app). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_health' which likely targets a single app.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_health' or 'test_all_indexers'. There is no mention of when not to use it or any context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Count import events by indexer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'count' implying aggregation, but lacks details on pagination, filtering, ordering, or the format of the result. The behavioral profile is largely unspecified.
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?
While short, the description is under-specified. It is missing essential context that would help an agent use the tool correctly, making it too concise to be useful.
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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what constitutes an 'import event', how grouping works, or what the output structure looks like. It fails to provide a complete picture for proper tool 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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention any of the 11 parameters (e.g., 'to', 'from', 'app', 'groupBy'), leaving their meaning entirely to the schema property names, which are insufficient for some parameters like 'cursor' or '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 tool counts import events by indexer, indicating a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'grabs_by_indexer' or 'failed_downloads_by_indexer', which also group by 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, such as other 'by_indexer' tools or raw history queries. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or appropriate contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Group history languages by indexer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description gives no behavioral context such as pagination, sorting, or mutability. The word 'Group' implies aggregation but lacks details on data limits or response structure, leaving much unknown.
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 extremely brief (one short sentence), which is efficient but severely under-informative. It lacks structure and front-loads no critical details beyond the basic purpose. The sentence earns its place but does not compensate for missing 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?
Given the complexity (11 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, no annotations), the description is critically incomplete. It provides no explanation of parameters, return values, or behavior, making it nearly useless 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?
The input schema has 11 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds zero information about any parameter. Common parameters like 'to', 'from', 'app', 'page', etc. are left entirely unexplained, despite the description being the only source of semantics.
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 groups history languages by indexer. It uses a specific verb ('Group') and identifies the resource ('history languages') and grouping dimension ('by indexer'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'codec_by_indexer' or 'quality_by_indexer' which follow the same pattern.
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 use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools performing similar groupings (e.g., codec_by_indexer), the description fails to clarify the specific use case or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Summarize audio codec distribution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, filtering, or destructive potential. The tool may involve reads but is not clarified.
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 extremely concise (one sentence), but this conciseness sacrifices necessary detail. It is not well-structured for an agent to parse effectively.
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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain how to use pagination, filtering, or what the summary entails.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not mention any parameters or their roles. With 11 parameters including enums and pagination controls, the description adds no semantic value.
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 'Summarize audio codec distribution' indicates a verb and resource, but it is generic and does not differentiate from closely named siblings like 'audio_distribution', 'codec_distribution', or 'library_codec_distribution'.
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 usage guidelines are provided. The description gives no context on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Summarize video codec distribution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. The one-line description only says it 'summarizes', but does not specify output format, whether it returns aggregated data, pagination behavior, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's 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 extremely concise (4 words), which is economical but borders on under-specification. It could be slightly expanded to add crucial context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is vastly incomplete. It does not explain the return value structure, what 'distribution' entails, or how the many parameters influence the result. The agent lacks essential information to use the tool effectively.
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 has 11 parameters with zero description coverage, and the tool description adds no meaning to any parameter. The agent receives no hints about what parameters like 'to', 'app', 'from', 'detail', 'fields', etc., control or how to use them.
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 (summarize) and resource (video codec distribution), making the core purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling 'codec_distribution' tool, which likely has a similar purpose but without the 'library' scope.
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 like 'codec_distribution', 'audio_distribution', or other library-specific summaries. No context about prerequisites or typical use cases is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Estimate growth from added dates and recent imports.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as authorization requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what 'estimate' implies. The description lacks sufficient transparency for the agent to anticipate tool 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 short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concisely informative. Valuable details about parameters and usage are omitted, making it insufficient.
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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotation support. The description fails to provide the necessary context for an agent to correctly invoke the tool, especially regarding parameter semantics and behavioral expectations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (no descriptions in the input schema), and the tool description does not explain any of the 11 parameters. The agent cannot infer what each parameter means or how to use them.
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 'estimate growth' and resource 'library growth from added dates and recent imports', which is clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'storage_growth' or 'simulate_storage_growth', though the focus on 'added dates and recent imports' provides some 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent has no context to decide between this and sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Summarize HDR/dynamic range distribution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only says 'summarize' but does not disclose side effects (likely none), whether it is read-only, or any behavioral traits such as pagination, output structure, or performance implications.
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 too brief to be useful. It does not earn its place as it provides minimal information. True conciseness would retain necessary details while being efficient.
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?
Extremely incomplete given the complexity: 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers none of the required behavioral or parameter 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 has 11 parameters with 0% coverage in description. Description does not mention any parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. With many parameters including pagination and filtering, this is a critical gap.
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 summarizes HDR/dynamic range distribution. The verb 'summarize' and resource are specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling 'hdr_distribution', which may have a different scope (library vs. broader).
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'hdr_distribution' or other distribution tools. No context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Summarize quality profile usage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It merely says 'summarize', implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on side effects, auth needs, rate limits, or output format. The description does not add sufficient context beyond the tool name.
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 extremely short (4 words) but at the expense of clarity. It is under-specified rather than concise. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the single sentence provides minimal utility.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 11 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description grossly lacks detail. It does not explain the scope of 'usage', filtering options, pagination (via cursor/page/limit), or the meaning of the 'detail' and 'groupBy' parameters. Completely insufficient for an agent to use effectively.
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 provides no information about the 11 parameters in the input schema. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description bears full responsibility, yet it adds zero value regarding parameter meaning or usage.
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 'Summarize quality profile usage' provides a verb ('summarize') and a resource ('quality profile usage'), but it is vague. It does not specify what 'usage' means or distinguish it from the sibling tool 'quality_profile_usage'.
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 the many sibling tools related to quality profiles, such as 'quality_profile_usage', 'update_quality_profile', or 'clone_quality_profile'. No alternatives 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.
Summarize quality distribution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavior. It only says 'Summarize quality distribution' without mentioning whether it reads data, requires parameters, pagination, or any side effects. The agent cannot infer safety or typical usage.
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?
While extremely concise (one sentence), the description is under-specified. It fails to provide needed information, making it not earn its place. Conciseness without substance is not effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, low schema coverage, many siblings), the description is critically incomplete. It does not cover return format, grouping, filtering, or how the distribution is summarized.
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?
With 11 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It does not explain what 'to', 'app', 'from', 'page', etc., are used for, leaving the agent with only parameter names and types.
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 vague purpose ('Summarize quality distribution') but does not specify the scope or differentiate from sibling tools like 'quality_distribution'. It is a generic statement that could apply to multiple tools.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'quality_distribution', 'audio_distribution'). No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Summarize resolution distribution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With zero annotations, the description must carry the full burden of disclosure. However, it provides no information about read-only nature, pagination behavior, or what data is summarized (e.g., per app or library-wide). The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's 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?
While extremely short (4 words), the description is under-specified rather than concise. It omits essential information, failing to earn its place. A good conciseness would include key details without verbosity.
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 complexity (11 parameters, 0 required, no output schema), the description is entirely inadequate. It does not cover what the tool returns, how to filter or paginate, or any edge cases. The agent cannot correctly invoke this tool.
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 11 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no explanation for any parameter. Agents have no way to infer the meaning of 'to', 'from', 'app', 'cursor', 'groupBy', etc., making the tool effectively unusable without external knowledge.
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 'Summarize resolution distribution' only vaguely states the action and resource. It does not specify what 'resolution' refers to (e.g., video resolution, something else) nor differentiate from sibling tools like 'resolution_distribution' or 'library_codec_distribution'.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is too brief to indicate any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many distribution-related siblings, the lack of differentiation is a critical omission.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Summarize storage usage by library.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only says 'summarize storage usage' but does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, auth requirements, or whether it returns aggregated or raw data. Minimal 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?
Extremely short (4 words) but under-specified. While concise, it sacrifices necessary information for usability. Every sentence should add value; this description lacks context and structure.
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?
With 11 parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description is highly incomplete. It does not explain the summary output, parameter roles, or differentiate from similar tools. Lacks essential context 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 description coverage is 0% and description adds no meaning to any of the 11 parameters. Parameters like 'to', 'app', 'from', 'page', 'cursor', 'detail', etc., are completely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for schema coverage deficit.
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 'summarize' and resource 'storage usage by library'. It distinguishes from siblings like storage_by_codec or storage_by_quality by focusing on library-level aggregation rather than breakdowns. However, it could be more specific about what 'summarize' entails.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as library_summary, storage_usage, or other storage breakdown tools. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Summarize configured Servarr libraries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, data scope, or 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?
One sentence is too terse; it lacks detail and structure, making it under-specified.
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?
With 11 parameters and no output schema, the description fails to provide any meaningful context about what the summary contains or how to use the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about the 11 parameters or their meanings.
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 tool summarizes configured Servarr libraries, but it's vague and does not distinguish from many sibling tools like library_storage_stats or library_growth_statistics.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no context about prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List local Servarr Analytics MCP backup files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions listing local backup files but does not disclose what information is returned (e.g., filenames, dates), leaving the agent to infer 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 extremely concise at 5 words, front-loading the purpose without any 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?
The tool has no parameters and no output schema, but the description omits what the list contains (e.g., file names, timestamps). Given the presence of create_backup and restore_backup siblings, more detail on the output would be helpful.
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 no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds no parameter detail, but with zero parameters, the baseline is 4 as no additional meaning is 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 clearly states it lists local Servarr Analytics MCP backup files, using the verb 'list' and specifying the resource 'backup files', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_backup and restore_backup.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but for a simple list operation with no parameters, the context is clear enough; it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Find quality profiles with identical quality sets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not mention behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, pagination, or result format. The description only states the action, leaving agents with no insight into side effects or constraints.
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 extremely concise at 6 words, but this brevity sacrifices necessary detail. It does not use the front-loaded structure effectively, and every word does not earn its place when critical information about parameters and behavior is missing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It lacks any information about parameters, return values, pagination, or how it relates to sibling tools. The agent cannot properly invoke the tool based on this description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 11 parameters. Parameters like 'to', 'from', 'detail', 'groupBy' remain completely undocumented, forcing agents to guess their meaning and usage.
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 'Find quality profiles with identical quality sets' specifies the verb 'Find', the resource 'quality profiles', and the condition 'identical quality sets'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'redundant_quality_profiles' and 'clone_quality_profile'. However, the meaning of 'quality sets' is not defined, which could cause ambiguity for unfamiliar agents.
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. With many sibling tools like 'get_quality_profiles', 'clone_quality_profile', and 'redundant_quality_profiles', the agent has no information about when this tool is preferred or what prerequisites exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Group history qualities by indexer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what side effects exist, or any other operational traits beyond the vague 'group' 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?
While the description is a single sentence, it is underspecified for a tool with 11 parameters. Conciseness is not valuable when it omits critical 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?
Given the complexity (11 parameters, no output schema) and existence of similar sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, parameter usage, or how to differentiate from other 'by_indexer' 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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving all 11 parameters undefined. The description fails to clarify required or optional 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 states 'Group history qualities by indexer,' which provides a verb and resource but is vague. It doesn't clarify what 'qualities' refers to, and among many 'by_indexer' sibling tools, it doesn't uniquely distinguish the tool's 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?
No usage context is provided. There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like codec_by_indexer or grabs_by_indexer, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Count library items by current file quality.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must provide behavioral insight, but it only states the basic counting function. It omits details on pagination, output format, or any side effects, leaving the agent uncertain about tool 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 only one sentence (8 words), which is overly terse. While concise, it sacrifices essential information, making it insufficient for a tool with 11 parameters and many siblings.
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 11 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain any parameter usage or return value structure, leaving a large gap for the 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 input schema has 11 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention any parameter meanings. The agent receives no help understanding required filters like 'app', 'from', 'to', or output controls like 'detail' and 'groupBy'.
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 counts library items by current file quality, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate itself from its sibling 'library_quality_distribution', which likely serves a similar 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'library_quality_distribution' or other distribution tools. There are no exclusions or context indicators.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Count library items per quality profile.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic counting function. It does not mention read-only behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or any side effects. The description fails to provide sufficient transparency for an agent to understand the operational context.
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. However, it sacrifices necessary information for brevity. While it is front-loaded, it lacks details that could be provided in a slightly longer description without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, many siblings, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not mention pagination, filtering, grouping, or the expected output format. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool based solely on the description.
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 11 parameters with zero description coverage (0%). The tool's description adds no explanation for any parameter. An agent has no guidance on how to use parameters like 'app', 'from', 'to', 'page', 'limit', 'groupBy', etc. This is a critical gap.
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 'Count library items per quality profile' clearly states the action (count), resource (library items), and grouping (per quality profile). However, it does not differentiate itself from similar sibling tools like 'library_profile_usage' or 'quality_distribution', which could overlap in functionality.
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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'library_profile_usage' or 'quality_distribution'. An agent has no context on choosing this tool over its many siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List Radarr movies that have not met cutoff.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only says 'list', implying read-only. No details on pagination, rate limits, or response structure.
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?
Overly concise to the point of being under-specified. Single sentence lacks necessary 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?
With 10 parameters and no output schema, the description fails to explain pagination, filtering, or response format. Highly incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds no clarity on 10 parameters. The agent must rely solely on schema without additional context.
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?
Description clearly states the tool lists Radarr movies that have not met cutoff, distinguishing it from tools like radarr_get_movies which lists all movies.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like radarr_get_missing or cutoff_unmet_by_profile. The description lacks context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List missing Radarr movies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states 'list,' implying a read operation, but does not mention pagination, sorting, filtering, or whether it returns only IDs or full movie objects. Critical behavioral details are missing.
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 too terse; while short, it fails to provide sufficient structure or detail. A single sentence does not earn its place given the tool's complexity.
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 high parameter count (10), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'missing' means, how pagination works, or what the response contains, making it inadequate 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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no information about the 10 parameters (e.g., from, to, page, detail, fields). The agent cannot infer parameter meanings without external knowledge.
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 lists 'missing Radarr movies', distinguishing it from siblings like radarr_get_movies (all movies) and radarr_get_cutoff_unmet. However, it does not define what 'missing' means, which is slightly ambiguous.
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. With many sibling tools for listing Radarr resources, the absence of usage context is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return one Radarr movie by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| to | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description does not disclose behavior beyond retrieval, such as how optional parameters affect results, error handling for non-existent IDs, or id generation. Minimal transparency.
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?
Extremely concise (8 words), but lacks important detail. It is front-loaded but could be expanded without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 11 parameters and no output schema, description is incomplete. It fails to explain the role of optional parameters, making it hard for an agent to invoke 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 coverage is 0% and description mentions only 'by id', ignoring the other 10 parameters (to, from, page, limit, cursor, detail, fields, groupBy, pageSize, sampleRecords). No added meaning beyond 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 'Return one Radarr movie by id' clearly states the specific verb (return), resource (movie), and filter (by id). It distinguishes from sibling tools like radarr_get_movies that return multiple movies.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. With many sibling tools, an explicit note about using this for single movie retrieval and radarr_get_movies for multiple movies would help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List movie files for a Radarr movie.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| movieId | Yes | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description omits behavioral traits like pagination, authentication needs, rate limits, or data effects. For a list operation, details like cursor-based pagination (parameter 'cursor') are left unstated.
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 is concise but lacks structure. It front-loads purpose but omits necessary details, making it under-specified rather than efficiently structured.
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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain return values, pagination behavior, field selection, grouping, or detail level options.
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 0%, and the description adds no parameter meaning. With 11 parameters (including pagination, filtering, detail level), the agent gets no help understanding their roles or constraints.
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 specific verb 'List' and clear resource 'movie files for a Radarr movie', distinguishing it from siblings like radarr_get_movies (lists movies) and radarr_get_movie (single movie).
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 on when to use vs alternatives, no mention of when not to use, and no context about prerequisites or filtering.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List Radarr movies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose pagination, filtering, or any behavioral traits beyond the minimal 'list' action. Key aspects like the absence of side effects or required permissions are omitted.
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?
While very short, the description is severely under-specified. It fails to convey essential information, making the conciseness detrimental to usability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no context for understanding the tool's behavior or proper 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 description provides no information about any of the 10 parameters. Schema coverage is 0%, so the schema itself is useless. The agent has no clue what 'from', 'to', 'page', 'cursor', etc., mean.
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 (list) and resource (Radarr movies), but does not differentiate from sibling tools like radarr_get_movie or radarr_get_missing.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Find unused or duplicate quality profiles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only or destructive, nor does it explain the scope or 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?
The description is a single sentence, concise but too brief. It lacks structure to include usage or parameter hints, making it under-specified.
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 high parameter count (11), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is highly incomplete. It does not explain output format, parameter roles, or definition of redundancy.
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 fails to explain any of the 11 parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but barely adds value.
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 tool finds unused or duplicate quality profiles, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_quality_profiles or quality_profile_usage, but does not explicitly differentiate.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as quality_profile_usage or clone_quality_profile. Missing context on prerequisites or suitability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Group release groups by indexer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states a grouping action without indicating read-only/mutability, pagination behavior, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with 11 parameters.
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 extremely concise (one short sentence), which is efficient but at the cost of missing critical information. It does earn its place by stating the core purpose, but lacks depth.
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 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides almost no contextual information. It does not explain output format, pagination, or parameter usage, making it very incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameter. It fails to add meaning beyond the bare schema, leaving all 11 parameters undefined.
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 'Group' and the resource 'release groups' with the grouping criterion 'by indexer'. It provides a specific verb+resource combination, though it does not differentiate from siblings like 'grabs_by_indexer' or 'codec_by_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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Generate report failed downloads.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'report' implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state read-only nature, authentication needs, or what happens if no failed downloads exist. Minimal 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?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it is poorly structured and contains a grammatical error. It adds little value beyond the title and does not front-load important 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?
Given 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the report's format, pagination via 'page'/'limit'/'cursor', or what the response will contain. The agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based on the description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameter descriptions are missing from the input schema. The tool description adds no meaning to the 11 parameters (e.g., what 'to', 'from', 'detail' mean). This is a critical gap.
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 'Generate report failed downloads' indicates a verb ('Generate') and resource ('report failed downloads'), but it is grammatically awkward and vague. It does not specify the type of report (list vs. aggregated) or differentiate it from siblings like 'failed_downloads_by_indexer' or 'report_monthly_statistics'.
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 use this tool versus alternatives. Given many sibling tools for reporting, the description fails to help the agent decide which tool to invoke.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Generate report monthly statistics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided and description lacks any behavioral context such as read-only, pagination, or data source. Completely opaque.
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?
Too brief to be useful; a single sentence that adds no value beyond the tool name. Not conciseness but under-specification.
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 11 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, the description fails to provide any context about inputs, outputs, or behavior.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters but does not. The 11 parameters are left undefined.
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 repeats the tool name without specifying what kind of monthly statistics or how it differs from sibling reports like library_summary or report_storage_review.
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 on when to use this tool versus other reporting tools. The description is too generic to inform selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Generate report quality review.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, what data it accesses, or any side effects. The description is completely silent on 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?
Extremely concise (one short sentence) but at the expense of all useful information. It is under-specified rather than concisely informative.
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 11 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description provides virtually no context. Completely inadequate for an agent to decide when or how to invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% with 11 parameters, none described in the schema or the description. The description adds no meaning to any 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?
Description 'Generate report quality review' is a tautology of the tool name and provides no specificity about what the report contains or how it differs from other reports.
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 on when to use this tool versus the many sibling reporting tools. No context or alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Generate report recommendations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Generate report recommendations,' which fails to describe any side effects, read/write behavior, auth requirements, rate limits, or return handling. This is insufficient.
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, which is concise but severely under-specified. It does not provide necessary information, so it fails to earn 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?
Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, many sibling tools), the description is completely inadequate. It lacks details on parameters, return values, and usage 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?
The input schema has 11 parameters with zero description coverage (0%). The description does not explain any parameter's purpose, format, or usage. It fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
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 'Generate report recommendations,' which names a verb and resource but is extremely vague. Among many sibling tools that start with 'report_' (e.g., report_failed_downloads, report_monthly_statistics), this does not distinguish what kind of recommendations it generates, leaving the purpose unclear.
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 any context, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over other report tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Generate report storage review.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as whether this tool is read-only, destructive, or requires authentication. No side effects or output format details are given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one sentence) but lacks substance. It is under-specified rather than concise, providing no actionable information beyond a tautology of the 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?
Given 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to convey the tool's purpose, usage context, or parameter roles, making it nearly unusable.
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 defines 11 parameters with no descriptions (0% coverage). The tool description adds no explanation or guidance for any parameter, leaving the agent unable to understand how to use them.
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 minimal and vague, essentially restating the tool name ('report storage review'). It lacks specificity about what the report contains, how it differs from sibling tools like storage_usage or library_storage_stats.
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 use this tool versus other storage-related siblings. The description does not mention alternative tools or context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Generate report tracker review.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavior. It provides no details on side effects, permissions, response format, or any other behavioral trait.
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?
Extremely concise but at the cost of essential information. Under-specification is not appropriate conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 11 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is entirely insufficient for an agent to use this 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 0%. The description does not explain any of the 11 parameters, leaving agents with no understanding of how to use them.
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 'Generate report tracker review' is vague and does not specify what a 'report tracker review' entails. Among numerous sibling tools with specific purposes (e.g., report_quality_review, report_storage_review), this tool fails to differentiate itself.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No context or exclusions provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Count library items by resolution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Count library items by resolution' without mentioning any behavioral traits like pagination, filtering, or return format. This is a complete lack of transparency.
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 extremely concise with one sentence, but it is under-specified and lacks essential context. While no words are wasted, important information is missing, so it is not 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?
Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, many siblings), the description is completely inadequate. It provides no context about parameters, output, or usage, resulting in a score of 1.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides no information about any of the 11 parameters, including enums like 'app' and 'detail'. No parameter semantics are conveyed, earning a score of 1.
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 verb 'Count' and the resource 'library items by resolution', making the purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish from the very similar sibling tool 'library_resolution_distribution', which also likely counts library items by resolution, reducing the score from 5 to 4.
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, such as filtering or pagination. No context or exclusions are given, resulting in a score of 2.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Plan or restore a backup. Actual restore requires confirm true and dryRun false.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app | No | ||
| dryRun | No | ||
| confirm | No | ||
| backupFile | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It reveals two modes and parameter requirements but does not disclose potential destructive effects of restore or what planning returns. More detail on behavior is needed.
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 extremely concise (two short sentences), front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's core functionality.
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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits return values, error conditions, and prerequisites for a tool with significant effects (restore).
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 0%, so description must add meaning. It only references 'confirm' and 'dryRun' indirectly, ignoring 'app' and 'backupFile'. This provides little value beyond the schema itself.
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 it's for planning or restoring a backup, distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_backup' and 'list_backups'. It identifies two operational modes, which is specific, but could be more explicit about what 'plan' entails.
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 clear parameter conditions for actual restore ('confirm true and dryRun false'), implicitly guiding when to plan vs restore. However, it lacks guidance on prerequisites or when not to use the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Run a dry-run simulate codec strategy simulation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| target | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No | ||
| proposedChange | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only indicates 'dry-run' implying non-destructiveness, but fails to explain other important behaviors like data source, performance impact, or response structure. This is insufficient for a tool with 13 parameters.
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, but it contains redundancy ('simulate' appears twice in 'simulate codec strategy simulation'). It meets minimal conciseness but could be more efficient and clearer.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and many siblings), the description is extremely incomplete. It does not explain pagination, required parameters, return values, or how the simulation works, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.
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 has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention any parameters. It provides no meaning beyond what the schema offers, which itself lacks descriptions. The agent gets no help understanding what fields like 'proposedChange' or 'target' represent.
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 'Run a dry-run simulate codec strategy simulation.' which conveys a simulation of a codec strategy, but the wording is redundant and fails to distinguish this tool from numerous sibling simulation tools such as simulate_custom_format_change or simulate_cutoff_change.
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 use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria for using this simulation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Run a dry-run simulate custom format change simulation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| target | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No | ||
| proposedChange | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states 'dry-run simulate... simulation', indicating no side effects, but this is repetitive. With no annotations, more details about behavior (e.g., output, limitations, or failure modes) are needed. The one-sentence description is insufficient.
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, but it contains redundancy ('Run a dry-run simulate custom format change simulation'). It is not overly long, but could be more concise and informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, no output schema) and the many sibling tools, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the simulation does, what 'custom format change' means, or how parameters affect the simulation.
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 13 parameters, including nested objects and enums, but the description provides no information about any parameter. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it fails to do so.
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 'simulate custom format change', which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate this simulation from other similar simulation tools in the sibling list, such as simulate_cutoff_change or simulate_score_change.
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 use this tool versus its alternatives. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, best practices, or situations where this tool is appropriate or not.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Run a dry-run simulate cutoff change simulation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| target | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No | ||
| proposedChange | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The term 'dry-run' implies no permanent changes, but the description does not explain side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or what the output represents. This is insufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's impact.
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 extremely short (one sentence), but it is not efficient—it contains redundancy ('simulate cutoff change simulation') and lacks structure. While brevity is valued, the description fails to pack essential information into the limited space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain inputs, outputs, behavior, or how the simulation works. The agent would be unable to use this tool effectively without additional documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema provides no parameter descriptions, and the tool description adds less than the schema. The description does not clarify the meaning or usage of any of the 13 parameters, including complex ones like 'proposedChange' and 'target'. This forces the agent to guess or ignore them.
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 'Run a dry-run simulate cutoff change simulation' indicates the tool performs a simulation of a cutoff change. However, it is somewhat tautological ('simulate...simulation') and does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools like simulate_quality_profile_change or simulate_score_change, which are also simulation tools.
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, no prerequisites, and no conditions under which it should not be used. The agent receives no context to help decide between this and similar simulation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Dry-run hypothetical quality profiles and custom formats against current files and live releases without applying changes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | Yes | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| customFormats | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No | ||
| profileMappings | No | ||
| qualityProfiles | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description correctly identifies the tool as non-destructive (dry-run, no changes applied) but omits behavioral details such as pagination, search capabilities, output format, or error handling. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only covers basic safety.
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 core purpose and actionable context (dry-run, hypothetical, against current files/releases). No unnecessary 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?
Given the high complexity (15 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is far from complete. It does not explain what the simulation results contain, how pagination or search works, what detail levels mean, or how to use the many optional parameters. The agent would lack critical context for proper 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 0%, requiring the description to explain parameters. The description only mentions 'quality profiles' and 'custom formats', which map to qualityProfiles and customFormats, but ignores many other parameters like to, from, page, detail, fields, search, groupBy, profileMappings, etc. This is insufficient for understanding parameter usage.
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?
Description clearly states the tool dry-runs hypothetical quality profiles and custom formats against current files and live releases without applying changes. It uses specific verbs (dry-run) and resources (quality profiles, custom formats), distinguishing it from related siblings like simulate_quality_profile_change or simulate_custom_format_change.
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 use for previewing impact before making changes, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like simulate_quality_profile_change or simulate_custom_format_change. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Run a dry-run simulate quality profile change simulation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| target | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No | ||
| proposedChange | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description includes 'dry-run' implying no side effects, but this is minimal. Without annotations, the description should explicitly state that the tool is read-only and does not modify configuration, as well as any other behavioral traits like authorization requirements or performance implications. The current text leaves ambiguity.
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 short but at the expense of clarity. It is a single redundant sentence that fails to convey useful information. While brevity is good, the lack of structure (e.g., no bullet points, no parameter hints) undermines its effectiveness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the return value, pagination behavior (parameters like 'page', 'limit', 'cursor'), or the meaning of 'target' and 'proposedChange'. The agent lacks essential information 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 description provides no explanation for any of the 13 parameters (e.g., 'to', 'from', 'app', 'proposedChange'). With 0% schema description coverage, the agent has no guidance on how to set these parameters, making the tool nearly unusable. The description adds zero value beyond the schema itself.
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 'Run a dry-run simulate quality profile change simulation' is largely tautological, restating the tool name without clarifying its unique purpose. It fails to specify what aspect of quality profile change is simulated or how it differs from siblings like 'simulate_custom_format_change' or 'simulate_cutoff_change.' The verb 'simulate' is repeated but no concrete resource or action is defined.
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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this simulation versus other simulation tools, nor does it state prerequisites or conditions under which the tool should be avoided. An agent would have no basis to decide between this and similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Run a dry-run simulate score change simulation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| target | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No | ||
| proposedChange | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description labels the operation as a 'dry-run' simulation, implying non-destructiveness, but provides no further behavioral details such as permissions required, response format, or limits. As there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden but offers minimal 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?
The description is extremely short but under-specified, not concise. The single sentence is redundant and wastes the opportunity to provide essential 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?
Given 13 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine valid inputs or expected behavior from this description alone.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and 13 parameters (including nested objects), the description fails to explain any parameter meaning. The agent has no hints about fields like 'to', 'from', 'target', or 'proposedChange', making correct invocation nearly impossible.
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 'Run a dry-run simulate score change simulation' is tautological, restating the tool name. It fails to clarify what a 'score change' is or distinguish this from sibling simulation tools like simulate_custom_format_change or simulate_quality_profile_change.
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 use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this simulation is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Run a dry-run simulate storage growth simulation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| target | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No | ||
| proposedChange | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden. It only states 'dry-run', implying no side effects, but does not explain what the simulation returns, what data it modifies, or any behaviors beyond that. The many parameters are left unexplained.
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, which is concise, but it is redundant and lacking structure. It could be more informative without adding length.
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 complexity (13 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the simulation does, how inputs affect outputs, or what the response looks like.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning to the 13 parameters, such as 'to', 'from', 'proposedChange', etc. This is a critical gap.
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 it is a dry-run simulation of storage growth, but it is somewhat tautological. It does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'storage_growth' or 'simulate_storage_savings'. The verb 'simulate' is repeated unnecessarily.
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 use this tool versus the many similar simulation siblings (e.g., simulate_custom_format_change, simulate_upgrade_impact). Context signals indicate a complex tool with 13 parameters, but no usage tips are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Run a dry-run simulate storage savings simulation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| target | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No | ||
| proposedChange | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description offers minimal behavioral insight; 'dry-run' is mentioned but not explained (e.g., no changes made, no side effects). No details on safety, permissions, or data impact.
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 extremely short but wastes words on repetition ('simulate ... simulation'). It is not front-loaded; the entire content is circular and uninformative.
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?
With 13 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is critically insufficient. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or how it differs from 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 0%, and the description provides no information about the 13 parameters (e.g., 'to', 'app', 'proposedChange'). The user cannot infer parameter purpose, types, or relationships from the description.
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 'Run a dry-run simulate storage savings simulation' is vague and tautological. It only restates the tool name without specifying what resources or parameters are involved, and fails to distinguish from siblings like 'estimated_storage_savings' or 'simulate_storage_growth'.
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 use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling simulation tools, the description lacks any context for selection or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Run a dry-run simulate upgrade impact simulation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| target | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No | ||
| proposedChange | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. The term 'dry-run' indicates no destructive changes, which is helpful, but the description lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or what the simulation produces (e.g., summary vs. detailed report).
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 extremely short (6 words) but at the expense of content. While concise, it fails to include essential information, making it under-specified rather than efficiently written.
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 complexity (13 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the simulation involves, what the output looks like, or how parameters relate to the upgrade scenario.
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?
With 13 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no parameter information. The schema itself has no descriptions, leaving the agent with no semantic guidance for using parameters like 'to', 'from', 'proposedChange', etc.
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 'Run a dry-run simulate upgrade impact simulation' is vague and somewhat redundant. It indicates a dry-run (no changes) but fails to specify what is being upgraded (e.g., versions, apps). The title helps but the description adds little clarity.
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 usage guidelines provided. Among many sibling tools like 'apply_patch', 'dry_run_patch', and other 'simulate_*' tools, there is no guidance on when to use this tool or how it differs from alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List Sonarr episodes that have not met cutoff.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic function without disclosing behavioral traits such as pagination, authentication needs, or side effects (e.g., read-only nature). The description lacks the behavioral context needed for an agent to use it safely.
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. While efficient, it lacks structure for a tool with 10 optional parameters. A more structured description with parameter roles would be beneficial without adding excessive length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain pagination, filtering, or result format, making it difficult for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The description needs to cover these aspects to be contextually 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 input schema has 10 parameters with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds no meaning to any parameter, leaving their purpose entirely unclear. For example, 'to', 'from', 'page', 'cursor', etc., are not explained. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 'List Sonarr episodes that have not met cutoff' uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('episodes that have not met cutoff'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like sonarr_get_episodes (all episodes) and sonarr_get_missing (missing episodes).
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 listing cutoff-unmet episodes, which provides context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like sonarr_get_episodes or sonarr_get_missing, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List episode files for a Sonarr series.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| seriesId | Yes | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only, pagination behavior, rate limits, or required permissions. The schema lists pagination parameters but the description omits any explanation.
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, which is concise but lacks substance. It front-loads the purpose but does not earn its place by providing essential details beyond the 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?
With 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide complete context. The agent lacks information on return format, pagination, or parameter semantics, making effective invocation unlikely.
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 has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning beyond stating 'series'. Eleven parameters, including pagination and filtering options, are left unexplained, forcing the agent to guess.
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 'List episode files for a Sonarr series,' which identifies the main action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sonarr_get_episodes (which lists episode metadata) and other list tools.
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 use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List episodes for a Sonarr series.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| seriesId | Yes | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description solely bears the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. However, it only states 'List episodes' without revealing any traits such as pagination, filtering, or response structure. This is insufficient for a tool with 11 parameters.
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 very short (one sentence), but it sacrifices informativeness for brevity. It fails to earn its place by not adding value beyond the 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?
Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is critically incomplete. It does not explain how to use pagination, what the response looks like, or any caveats.
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 11 parameters with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds no explanation for any parameter, leaving the agent to infer meaning from names alone. For example, 'seriesId', 'to', 'from', 'page', 'limit', etc., are not clarified.
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 'List' and the resource 'episodes for a Sonarr series', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sonarr_get_episode_files or sonarr_get_series by specifying 'episodes' and 'series'.
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 use this tool versus alternatives, nor any indication of when not to use it. The description lacks context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List missing Sonarr episodes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'list,' ignoring details like pagination support (cursor, page, limit), default sorting, or whether the operation is read-only. The numerous schema parameters suggest complex behavior, but the description fails to explain it.
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 extremely short but at the expense of utility. It omits essential context for a tool with 10 parameters and many siblings. Conciseness should not sacrifice necessary 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?
Given no output schema, high parameter count (10), 0% parameter descriptions, and numerous sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It provides almost no context for correct usage, failing to address filtering, pagination, or expected response 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no parameter explanations. All 10 parameters (page, limit, cursor, detail, fields, etc.) remain undocumented in both schema and description, making correct invocation nearly impossible.
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 'List' and specifies the resource as 'missing Sonarr episodes,' which is informative. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'sonarr_get_cutoff_unmet' or 'radarr_get_missing,' missing an opportunity to clarify unique scope.
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 use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions where other tools might be preferred, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List Sonarr series, or return one series when id is provided.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| to | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'list' or 'return,' implying read-only behavior, but does not confirm safety, mention rate limits, or describe pagination despite multiple parameters (page, limit, cursor). No details on what 'return one series' entails (e.g., full details vs summary).
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 succinct with two sentences, front-loading the primary function. However, given the complexity (11 parameters, many sibling tools), it is possibly over-concise, sacrificing necessary detail for brevity.
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 11 parameters, zero schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to provide enough context for proper usage, such as parameter formats, pagination details, or return value structure. The agent would have difficulty using this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for 11 parameters. The description adds no meaning to any parameter. Even basic parameters like 'id' or 'page' are not explained. Without explanation, the agent cannot know how to use parameters correctly, especially optional ones like 'fields', 'detail', or 'cursor'.
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?
Description clearly states the tool lists Sonarr series or returns one series when an id is provided. It distinguishes two modes (list all vs single retrieval). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like sonarr_get_episodes or sonarr_get_missing, which could be confused.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools (e.g., sonarr_get_episodes, sonarr_get_missing) but no indication of which to choose based on the user's goal. No context about prerequisites or when to supply an id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Group storage by codec.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as data aggregation, pagination, or output format. The description fails to inform the agent about the tool's 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 extremely concise (one sentence), but given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no annotations), it is underspecified. The brevity sacrifices 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?
The description is insufficient for a tool with no output schema, no annotations, and 11 parameters. It fails to provide essential context for selecting or 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?
With 0% schema description coverage and 11 parameters, the description adds no meaning to the parameters. Parameter names like 'to', 'from', and 'groupBy' are left unexplained, causing ambiguity.
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 action 'Group storage by codec', clarifying the tool's purpose. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like 'codec_distribution' or 'storage_by_quality', and lacks detail on what 'storage' refers to.
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 use this tool vs. alternatives such as 'codec_distribution' or 'storage_by_resolution'. The description gives no context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Group storage by quality.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only says 'Group storage by quality'. It omits key traits such as whether the operation is read-only, what the output looks like, 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?
The description is very concise (one sentence) but lacks structure and sufficient detail. It is under-specified, not efficiently informative.
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 complexity of 11 parameters and many sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the return format, grouping mechanism, or any context needed 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?
The input schema has 11 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description provides no information about what each parameter does or how to use them. The description adds no value 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 'Group storage by quality', which provides a clear verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like storage_by_codec by the grouping key. However, it is vague about what 'storage' refers to (e.g., sizes, counts) and lacks detail.
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 like storage_by_codec or storage_by_resolution. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Group storage by resolution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states it groups by resolution, but does not mention whether it is read-only, pagination behavior, required permissions, 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?
The description is extremely short (one sentence), but for a tool with 11 parameters and no schema descriptions, it is under-specified rather than concise. Key information is missing.
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 complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description fails to provide essential context such as output format, pagination, or how grouping is computed. The description is insufficient for correct use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% across 11 parameters. The description adds no meaning to any parameter, leaving the agent without guidance on what parameters like 'cursor', 'detail', 'sampleRecords' control.
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 'Group storage by resolution' is nearly a tautology of the tool name 'storage_by_resolution', adding minimal new information. It does not distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'storage_by_codec' or 'storage_by_quality'.
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 use this tool over alternatives. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, intended use cases, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Estimate storage growth from history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, destructive, rate limits). The description gives no insight into what happens when called.
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 extremely short (4 words) but lacks substance. Conciseness is undermined by under-specification; every word should earn its place, but this fails to inform adequately.
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 11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover any contextual details needed for correct use.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and 11 parameters, the description does not describe any parameter meaning beyond the schema. It adds no value, leaving the agent to guess the purpose of fields like 'detail', 'groupBy', etc.
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 verb ('Estimate') and a resource ('storage growth'), but is vague by saying 'from history' without specifying what history or what kind of growth. It distinguishes from siblings like 'simulate_storage_growth' by suggesting real estimation, but the lack of detail lowers clarity.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'library_growth_statistics' or 'simulate_storage_growth'. No exclusions or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Summarize storage usage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description provides no behavioral traits; no annotations are present, so the description does not disclose what the tool does internally (e.g., aggregation, read-only, pagination 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 extremely short but underspecified; it fails to provide necessary context, making it inadequate rather than 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?
Given the complexity (11 parameters, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete; it does not explain what the summary includes or how to interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 11 parameters (e.g., 'detail', 'groupBy', 'fields'), leaving the agent without guidance.
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 'Summarize storage usage' is vague and does not differentiate from sibling tools like storage_by_codec or storage_growth, which also deal with storage summaries.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives; no context or exclusions provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Estimate indexer success rate from grab/import/failure history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'estimate' but does not clarify what that entails (e.g., whether it returns a percentage, counts, or uses ML). No disclosure about read-only, destructive nature, or authentication needs.
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, which is concise but lacks necessary structure. While not verbose, it fails to provide essential information that could be added without 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 the complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, pagination, or date range handling, leaving the agent without crucial 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 0%, yet the description does not mention or explain any of the 11 parameters (e.g., 'to', 'from', 'app', 'detail'). The agent receives no help understanding parameter purpose or formatting.
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 estimates indexer success rate from history data (grab/import/failure). The verb 'estimate' and resource are specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'grabs_by_indexer' or 'failed_downloads_by_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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context provided. The description is a single sentence without any usage hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Trigger Prowlarr tests for all indexers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits, but it only says 'trigger tests' without explaining effects, network activity, or whether it is destructive. Little value beyond the title.
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, but it omits critical details, making it under-specified rather than efficient.
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 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool based on the provided information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no information about the 10 parameters (e.g., 'to', 'from', 'page', etc.). The agent has no way to know how to use them.
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 'trigger' and resource 'Prowlarr tests for all indexers', distinguishing it from the sibling 'test_indexer' which implies testing a single indexer. However, it lacks specificity on what 'tests' entail.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'test_indexer'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Test connectivity for one Servarr app.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | Yes | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it modifies state, requires authentication, or has side effects. The word 'test' implies safety, but details are missing.
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, but it is too terse for a tool with 11 parameters. It lacks structure and fails to convey necessary details, sacrificing clarity for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It omits essential information about how the connectivity test works, what the response looks like, and what the extra parameters do.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and 11 parameters, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. Parameters like 'to', 'from', 'page', 'limit', 'cursor', etc., are unexplained, leaving the agent guessing.
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 it tests connectivity for one Servarr app, with the app parameter determining which app. However, among siblings like 'test_indexer' and 'test_all_indexers', it lacks 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 like 'test_indexer' or 'test_all_indexers'. The description does not mention prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Trigger a Prowlarr indexer test.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| to | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose any behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or what happens during the test. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, but it fails to add any behavioral context.
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, which is concise. However, it is too brief to be useful, sacrificing informativeness for brevity. It does not front-load essential 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?
Given the complexity (11 parameters, many optional), the description is severely incomplete. No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain return values or behavior. The tool cannot be used correctly without additional 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?
The schema has 11 parameters with 0% schema description coverage. The description mentions none of them, providing no meaning beyond the raw schema definitions. The required 'id' parameter is not explained, nor are any of the optional 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 says 'Trigger a Prowlarr indexer test.' It uses a verb and resource, which is clear, but it lacks specificity. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'test_all_indexers' or 'test_connection', leaving ambiguity about what exactly is tested.
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 use this tool versus alternatives. For example, when to use 'test_indexer' instead of 'test_all_indexers' or other testing tools is not mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Alias for custom format misses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description only states it is an alias. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, filtering behavior, or whether it is read-only. The agent gets no insight beyond the name.
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?
Extremely short but under-specified. It is not a model of conciseness because it sacrifices utility for brevity. Every sentence should earn its place, but this single sentence adds minimal 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?
Given the complexity (11 parameters, no output schema), the description is grossly inadequate. It provides no information about return format, pagination, expected behavior, or prerequisites. The agent cannot reliably invoke this tool from the description alone.
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 0% and the description adds no meaning to any of the 11 parameters. Parameters like 'to', 'from', 'page', 'detail', etc. are entirely undocumented. The description does not compensate for the low 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?
Description says 'Alias for custom format misses' which indicates it retrieves unused custom formats, but lacks a clear verb and does not specify the action (list, search, etc.). It is vague and does not distinguish from siblings like 'custom_format_hits' or 'duplicate_custom_formats'.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools for custom formats and reporting, but no conditions 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.
Update a custom format by id. Requires confirm=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| to | No | ||
| app | Yes | ||
| body | Yes | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| dryRun | No | ||
| fields | No | ||
| confirm | Yes | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only mentions the requirement for confirm=true, but does not disclose that this is a destructive update, what side effects occur, permission needs, or response behavior. This is insufficient.
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 very short (two clauses), which can be concise, but it sacrifices essential information. For a tool with 15 parameters and no schema coverage, this level of conciseness is under-specification, not efficiency.
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 complexity (15 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is extremely incomplete. It provides no return value, no comparison to siblings, no explanation of object structure for 'body,' and no context for when this update is appropriate. This is far from 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 input schema has 15 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description adds no meaning to parameters except that confirm must be true. It does not explain id, body, app, or any other parameters, leaving the agent with no guidance on how to fill them.
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 'Update a custom format by id,' which clearly identifies the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_custom_format_score' or 'duplicate_custom_formats,' so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.
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?
Only one usage condition is provided: 'Requires confirm=true.' No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as updating only the score or creating a new format. The description gives no context for appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Update custom format score data using the provided body. Requires confirm=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| to | No | ||
| app | Yes | ||
| body | Yes | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| dryRun | No | ||
| fields | No | ||
| confirm | Yes | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the update action and a required parameter but omits side effects, reversibility, permissions, or what happens to existing data. Without annotations, this is insufficient.
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, which is concise but lacks structure. It front-loads the action but sacrifices necessary detail, making it too terse for a complex tool with many parameters.
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 15 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is entirely inadequate. It does not explain inputs, outputs, or operational context, failing to equip the agent for proper 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?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no explanation for any of the 15 parameters except confirming confirm must be true. The critical 'body' parameter is undefined, leaving the agent guessing.
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 'Update' and resource 'custom format score data', clearly indicating the action. It does not differentiate from sibling tool 'update_custom_format', but the resource is distinct enough for basic clarity.
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?
Only mentions the requirement confirm=true. No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_custom_format' or 'simulate_score_change', nor any context on prerequisites or typical scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Update a delay profile by id. Requires confirm=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| to | No | ||
| app | Yes | ||
| body | Yes | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| dryRun | No | ||
| fields | No | ||
| confirm | Yes | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. 'Requires confirm=true' hints at destructive action, but no information about idempotency, side effects, or what happens during update. The schema includes dryRun with default true, which is not mentioned.
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?
Single sentence is concise but at the expense of missing crucial information. It could be more informative without being verbose.
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 15 complex parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is highly incomplete. It fails to explain what a delay profile is, how parameters like dryRun, fields, or pageSize relate, or what the tool returns.
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 has 15 parameters with 0% description coverage. Description adds no meaning beyond parameter names (e.g., 'id' is implied but not explained). Body is an arbitrary object with no guidance on structure.
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?
Description states 'Update a delay profile by id' which clearly identifies the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like update_quality_profile, but the resource name is specific.
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 on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like get_delay_profiles or other update tools. Only mentions a requirement (confirm=true) but no context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Update media management configuration. Requires confirm=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| to | No | ||
| app | Yes | ||
| body | Yes | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| dryRun | No | ||
| fields | No | ||
| confirm | Yes | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states the confirm requirement and fails to mention whether the update is destructive, what results to expect, 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?
The description is two short sentences, concise and front-loaded with the key requirement. No unnecessary 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?
Given 15 parameters, 2 enums, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is grossly inadequate. It lacks details on parameter usage, expected body format, and response behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and there are 15 parameters. The description only adds meaning for the confirm parameter. It does not explain the app, body, or other parameters, leaving the body's structure and purpose unclear.
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 it updates media management configuration and specifies a requirement (confirm=true). However, it does not differentiate from siblings like update_custom_format or update_quality_profile, but the name itself is specific 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 mentions the confirm=true requirement, giving a condition for use. But it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or 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.
Update naming configuration. Requires confirm=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| to | No | ||
| app | Yes | ||
| body | Yes | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| dryRun | No | ||
| fields | No | ||
| confirm | Yes | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only mentions 'update' and 'confirm=true,' but does not disclose effects, reversibility, permissions, or side effects. The behavior is barely described, making it insufficient for safe invocation.
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 only two sentences, but it is severely under-specified for a tool with 15 parameters. Conciseness is not equivalent to minimalism; the description fails to convey essential information and is too sparse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (15 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides almost no context. It does not explain what 'naming configuration' entails, the role of parameters, or expected outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only mentions 'confirm=true' as a requirement, ignoring the other 14 parameters (e.g., body, to, from, fields). No meaning is added beyond parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Update naming configuration,' which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it is too generic and does not distinguish from many sibling 'update' tools (e.g., update_custom_format, update_media_management). The resource 'naming configuration' is vague without further specification.
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 use this tool versus alternatives. The only hint, 'Requires confirm=true,' is a parameter requirement, not a usage guideline. The description lacks any context about when this tool is appropriate or when to prefer other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Update a quality definition by id. Requires confirm=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| to | No | ||
| app | Yes | ||
| body | Yes | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| dryRun | No | ||
| fields | No | ||
| confirm | Yes | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description mentions 'Requires confirm=true' which indicates a confirmation step, but it does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or requires special permissions. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short.
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 extremely short (one sentence), but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is not front-loaded with the most critical information, and the sentence could be more informative without being overly verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (15 parameters, 3 required, nested objects, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. The agent lacks context about what 'body' contains, the role of 'app', and how this tool differs from similar update tools in the sibling 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?
Schema coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds no meaning beyond parameter names. Only 'id' and 'confirm' are mentioned, but 'confirm' is already a required const:true in the schema. The description does not explain the purpose or format of critical parameters like 'body' and 'app'.
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 'Update a quality definition by id' which is a specific verb and resource, but it lacks differentiation from sibling tools like update_quality_profile. The term 'quality definition' is somewhat generic and could be ambiguous.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context provided. The description does not mention any siblings or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Update a quality profile by id. Requires confirm=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| to | No | ||
| app | Yes | ||
| body | Yes | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| dryRun | No | ||
| fields | No | ||
| confirm | Yes | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It only states the action and a required parameter, omitting details about idempotency, side effects, or return values. Inadequate 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?
Very concise at two sentences, but brevity sacrifices necessary detail. Every sentence is functional, but the description is too sparse for the tool's complexity.
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 15 parameters, 3 required, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It ignores most parameters (e.g., 'body', 'app', pagination fields), leaving the agent with insufficient context to use 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 0%. Description only adds value by noting 'confirm=true' and implying 'id' identifies the profile. Over a dozen parameters remain unexplained, failing to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
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?
Description states the action ('Update') and resource ('quality profile') clearly. However, it implies the profile is identified by 'id', but 'id' is not listed as a required parameter in the schema, leading to slight 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?
Only mentions the requirement 'confirm=true'. No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'create_quality_profile' or 'update_custom_format'. Lacks prerequisites or context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Update release profile restrictions. Requires confirm=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| to | No | ||
| app | Yes | ||
| body | Yes | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| dryRun | No | ||
| fields | No | ||
| confirm | Yes | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only notes the confirm parameter requirement and does not explain whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, or requires special permissions.
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 very concise with two short sentences, but it sacrifices informative content. It is not verbose, but conciseness should not come at the expense of utility.
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 15 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's functionality, parameter semantics, or behavioral traits, leaving an agent unsure how 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description adds no information about the 15 parameters, not even for the required ones (app, body, confirm). This is a critical gap for tool invocation.
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 'Update release profile restrictions,' clearly specifying the verb and resource (release profile restrictions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that update other resources (e.g., update_quality_profile). However, it could be more specific about what 'restrictions' entails.
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 mentions 'Requires confirm=true' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given many sibling update tools (e.g., update_custom_format, update_quality_profile), no context is given for choosing this one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List monitored items missing files or below cutoff.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states it 'lists' items, implying a read-only operation. It doesn't mention required permissions, rate limits, or pagination behavior (despite cursor/page parameters).
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 very concise (6 words) but overly minimal. It is front-loaded but lacks any supporting context or structure. Every word earns its place, but it does not provide enough 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?
Given the high complexity (11 params, no annotations, no output schema, many siblings), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain key concepts like 'monitored items' or 'below cutoff', leaving the agent without essential 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?
The description provides zero explanation for the 11 parameters despite 0% schema description coverage. The agent cannot infer the meaning of 'to', 'from', 'app', 'page', 'limit', etc., from the description alone.
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 lists monitored items that are missing files or below cutoff, providing a specific verb and resource with conditions. While it doesn't specify which applications, the 'app' parameter suggests it works across multiple apps. It distinguishes somewhat from siblings like 'cutoff_unmet_by_profile' by focusing on upgrade candidates across apps.
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 use this tool versus alternatives such as 'simulate_upgrade_impact' or 'radarr_get_cutoff_unmet'. The description lacks context on prerequisites or suitable scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Validate patch operations without applying them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dryRun | No | ||
| confirm | No | ||
| operations | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states validation without applying, but fails to explain what validation entails (e.g., error reporting), the role of 'dryRun' and 'confirm' parameters, or side effects. Minimal behavioral context.
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, front-loaded, and contains no filler. However, given the need for more parameter and behavioral explanation, it could be slightly more verbose without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With three parameters, no parameter descriptions in schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It omits what the tool returns, validation criteria, and how to construct the operations array. The agent lacks critical context for correct invocations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no information about the three parameters. It does not explain the purpose of 'dryRun', 'confirm', or the structure of 'operations'. The agent gains no semantic understanding beyond the schema itself.
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 'validate' and resource 'patch operations', and distinguishes from sibling 'apply_patch' by explicitly saying 'without applying them'. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's 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 when validation is desired without commitment, but does not explicitly mention when to use this vs alternatives like 'apply_patch' or 'dry_run_patch'. Guidance is implicit, not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Estimate failed or non-imported grab volume.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| app | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| detail | No | normal | |
| fields | No | ||
| groupBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sampleRecords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Estimate', implying it's not an exact count and is likely read-only, but it does not confirm safety, state whether it modifies data, or explain how estimates are computed.
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 too short—one sentence with minimal information. It sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, leading to under-specification.
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 complexity (11 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain return values, pagination, filtering options, or how to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning to any of the 11 parameters. The agent gets no help understanding parameters like 'to', 'app', 'cursor', 'detail', 'fields', etc.
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 it estimates failed or non-imported grab volume, which is clear and aligned with the tool name. However, it could be more specific about what 'volume' means (count/size) and how it distinguishes from similar sibling tools like failed_downloads_by_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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is too brief to help the agent choose between wasted_downloads and sibling tools like duplicate_grabs or failed_downloads_by_indexer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Most tools have clear purposes with prefixes like 'radarr_' and 'sonarr_' to distinguish between apps. However, some tools like 'get_history' are generic and ambiguous, and there are aliases like 'unused_custom_formats' for 'custom_format_misses', causing minor overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent lower_snake_case pattern with imperative verbs (e.g., 'get_', 'update_', 'simulate_'). The naming is predictable and adheres to a verb_noun structure throughout.
With 122 tools, the surface is extremely large for an MCP server. While the domain is broad (analytics, backups, simulations), many tools are redundant or could be consolidated, making it unwieldy and beyond typical scoping.
The server covers a wide range of operations including reading, updating, simulations, and reports. However, there are notable gaps such as missing delete operations for most resources (e.g., custom formats, indexers) and lack of backup management features beyond creation.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Manage brainCloud apps, cloud code, hooks and servers; API lookups to help generate client code.
Governed data discovery, exact queries, decisions, simulations, and runtime utilities over MCP.
SWAPI MCP — wraps the Star Wars API (swapi.dev, free, no auth)
Manage cron/heartbeat checks, read pings and flips, pause/resume/delete on Healthchecks.io.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Maxinger15/servarr-analytics-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
