get_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Read' makes the read-only nature clear, and it adds useful meaning for the 'naming' and 'mediamanagement' sections. However, it does not disclose response shape, error behavior, or any access requirements.

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

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a complete enumeration of sections and targeted clarifications for ambiguous ones. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter read-only tool, the description is largely complete: it enumerates all valid sections and clarifies the two most ambiguous ones. The remaining sections are self-explanatory, and while an output schema is absent, the returned settings object is reasonably predictable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value by explaining what 'naming' and 'mediamanagement' refer to, which helps an agent pick the right enum value without external knowledge. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'Settings section to read'.

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 ('Read') and the resource ('a Radarr settings section'), then enumerates the exact valid sections. This makes it immediately distinguishable from the many list/get siblings that deal with movies, quality profiles, or root folders.

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 when to use the tool: whenever you need a Radarr settings section. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is reasonably clear because this is the only tool dedicated to reading config sections.

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