get_queue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It communicates that this is a read-only listing operation and clarifies scope and returned fields, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, filtering semantics, or any edge cases. The description is adequate but leaves meaningful behavioral details to the 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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence: it leads with the action and resource, then adds valuable scope and content detail. Every part earns its place and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers the core operation well, and the rich schema fills in parameter details, but with 10 optional parameters, no output schema, and multiple closely related queue tools, a bit more orientation would help an agent choose correctly. It is functionally adequate but not fully complete for the surrounding 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 description coverage is 100%, with all 10 parameters documented and two enums providing allowed values, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics and, due to full schema coverage, does not need to compensate.

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 and resource ('List the download queue') and defines the scope as 'everything Sonarr is currently downloading or waiting to import,' while naming the returned content (progress, status, error messages). It is clear and unambiguous, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_queue_status or get_queue_details.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many queue-related siblings, including get_queue_details, get_queue_status, remove_queue_item, and grab_queue_item, but the description does not mention any of them or suggest selection criteria.

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