dashbrr_get_radarr_queue

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds that the response is paged, which is a useful behavioral detail, and gives a precondition for the instance_id. However, it doesn't mention what happens for invalid instance IDs or that the queue is limited to Radarr downloads. With annotations doing the heavy lifting on safety, a 3 is reasonable.

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?

Two short sentences. First sentence states the purpose and return shape; second sentence gives the critical parameter constraint. No redundancy.

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 a simple interface (1 param), an output schema, and read-only annotation. The description covers the domain, the pagination behavior, and the one parameter quirk. It could mention available instance IDs, but the output schema covers return values. Good enough for a 4.

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 schema has a single required string parameter with no description, and the tool description compensates by explaining the required type prefix format with an example. This is exactly the kind of semantic enrichment needed. Schema coverage 0%, so description carries the burden, but it does so effectively.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving the Radarr download queue, with the added detail that results are paged and include movie info. This differentiates it from sibling queue tools for Sonarr, Lidarr, and Readarr.

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 doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but it clearly implies this is for Radarr instances. The added instruction on instance_id type-prefixing gives crucial usage guidance for the only parameter. No explicit when-not-to-use, so 4.

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