cleanuparr_get_unlinked_config

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, and the description's 'Get' aligns with it. No additional behavioral details are provided, such as behavior for unknown or unconfigured clients, but this is acceptable for a simple read-only tool.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning: action, resource, and scope.

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 one-parameter read-only getter with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could improve by pointing to list_download_clients for obtaining valid GUIDs or to update_unlinked_config for the write counterpart, but the essential information is present.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does by clarifying that download_client_id is a 'download-client GUID', adding format and scope beyond the raw schema. It does not explain how to discover valid GUIDs, but the core meaning is conveyed.

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 names the exact resource ('unlinked-file settings') scoped to a download-client GUID. This clearly distinguishes it from other cleanuparr config getters.

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 implies usage as a per-client getter but does not explicitly state when to use this over update_unlinked_config or how to obtain a valid download-client GUID. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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