parse_release_title

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Parse' and 'diagnosing' strongly imply a read-only, non-mutating operation, and the description discloses what kind of interpretation Radarr produces. It does not explicitly state side effects, but for a parse endpoint this is sufficiently 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 two sentences long and wastes no words. The main action and useful diagnostic context are front-loaded, and every phrase adds 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?

For a one-parameter diagnostic tool, the description is largely complete: it states the input, the purpose, and the categories of output the caller should expect. It does not describe the exact return schema, but with no output schema provided and such a simple input contract, the description gives enough context for an agent to call it appropriately.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the single 'title' parameter with a concrete example. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('parse a release title') and a specific resource ('release title'), and it enumerates the exact dimensions of the result: movie, quality, languages, edition, release group, and custom formats. It clearly positions this tool as a diagnostic utility, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_releases or get_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?

The description gives a clear use case: diagnosing why a release is rejected or misidentified. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use the tool, but the diagnostic framing makes its context of use reasonably clear.

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