get_download_client_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that this is a read-only schema listing and that fields are creation templates, but it does not disclose that supplying the 'implementation' parameter returns only that implementation's schema rather than the full list. This is a meaningful behavioral nuance left to the input schema.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The first sentence states exactly what the tool returns, and the second provides the primary use case. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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

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

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned and why an agent would call it. The only gap is not explicitly stating the behavior when 'implementation' is supplied, but the parameter schema covers that and the tool is simple enough that the description is nearly complete.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter is already well documented ('Only the schema for this implementation, e.g. 'Newznab' or 'QBittorrent''). The description adds a useful framing — fields as templates for create_download_client — but does not substantially clarify optional filtering behavior 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every download client implementation Sonarr supports') and clearly states its output scope: the fields each implementation takes. It also points to create_download_client, which distinguishes it from schema-getters for other domains and from get_download_client, which retrieves an existing client.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: as the template for create_download_client. It does not name alternative tools for editing or inspecting existing clients, but the reference to the creation flow is enough to establish primary usage context.

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