dashbrr_get_lidarr_queue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the type-prefix requirement, which is parameter semantics rather than behavior. It does not contradict annotations, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 extremely concise: one short sentence plus an example. Every word serves a purpose, and the type-prefix requirement is front-loaded. No redundant or filler content.

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 simple read-only queue getter with one parameter and an output schema, the description is adequately complete. It states the resource and the key parameter constraint. It does not describe queue contents, but the output schema covers that. Slight gap in not addressing any edge cases, but overall sufficient.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining that instance_id must be type-prefixed (e.g., 'lidarr-0'). This adds critical format information not available from the schema, showing meaningful effort to clarify the single parameter.

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 identifies the resource clearly as 'Lidarr download queue' and the tool name includes the verb 'get'. It distinguishes from sibling queue tools by naming Lidarr specifically. However, it lacks an explicit verb in the description, relying on the tool name for that.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative queue tools like sonarr_queue or radarr_queue. The only usage-related information is the type-prefix requirement for instance_id, which is more of a parameter detail than contextual usage guidance.

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