cleanuparr_get_cf_item_history

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already discloses the safe read nature. The description adds a note about episode_id for Sonarr, which is a small behavioral context, but does not disclose return format, pagination, or any side effects. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded, no redundant wording. It 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?

The tool is a simple read operation with an output schema, so the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, it leaves ambiguity about the meaning of item_id and how it relates to episode_id, and does not mention the required instance_id. Given the low complexity, it is minimally sufficient but not thorough.

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 0%, and the description only clarifies episode_id's role for Sonarr. It does not explain item_id or instance_id, though their names offer some inherent meaning. The description fails to fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('Get score history') and the resource ('an item'). It is distinct from sibling tools that focus on aggregated stats or lists, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The only usage hint is that episode_id is used for Sonarr episode history, which implies a specific scenario but does not explain when to choose this tool over other CF-related tools.

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