cleanuparr_get_orphaned_files_config

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, and the description's 'Get' aligns with this. The description adds the scoping context that settings are tied to a specific download client, but does not disclose additional behavior such as error handling, return format, or whether the GUID must exist. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is acceptable but not rich.

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, compact sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource while conveying the key scoping detail. 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?

The tool has one simple parameter, an output schema, and readOnlyHint annotation. The description sufficiently states what is retrieved and for which scope. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema covers that, and the low complexity means no additional context is required for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema for download_client_id is just 'string' with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by clarifying that the parameter is a 'download-client GUID', adding semantic meaning and indicating the type of identifier expected. This directly addresses the parameter's purpose in context.

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 ('Get') and resource ('orphaned-file settings') and clearly scopes to a 'download-client GUID'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_orphaned_files_config and get_unlinked_config, which are either write operations or target a different concept.

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 phrase 'for a download-client GUID' implies the need to first obtain a download-client ID (likely from list_download_clients), providing implied usage context. However, no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions are given, leaving the agent to infer when this getter is appropriate over other config getters.

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