get_manual_import_candidates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden, and it does well: 'List' signals a non-mutating read operation, and the description reveals meaningful behavior such as mapping files to series/episodes and returning rejection reasons. It does not explicitly state that no changes are made, but the verb and diagnostic framing make that apparent.

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 with no filler. The main behavior is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is appended efficiently. Every phrase contributes meaning.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides enough high-level context for an agent to select and invoke it: it names the inputs, the operation, and the output shape. It could be more explicit about whether one of folder/download_id is required and what happens if both are provided, but the description covers the primary invocation 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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful relational semantics by framing 'folder or a stuck download' as the two primary input routes, corresponding to folder and download_id. This helps an agent understand that these are alternative inspection targets rather than independent filters.

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 ('List files') and a clear resource ('in a folder or a stuck download'), and explains what the result contains: the Sonarr-mapped series/episodes and rejection reasons. It also names its intended diagnostic purpose, which differentiates it from sibling tools that list episodes, queue items, or files without mapping/rejection context.

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 says when to use the tool: 'diagnose imports that need manual interaction.' It does not name specific alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the unique purpose and output make the use case reasonably clear without them.

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