Upgrade Candidates

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.