lidarr_calendar

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds operation-level details (fetch/list) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, date format expectations, or error handling. It is adequate but not rich beyond the 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?

The description is compact: a short lead-in sentence followed by a clearly formatted bulleted list. It front-loads the operations and avoids redundancy or filler. Every sentence 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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It covers the core operations and parameter lists. However, it could add more detail on argument value formats (e.g., date formats, tags structure) to be fully complete for a complex calendar tool. Still, it is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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 only defines 'operation' and a generic 'arguments' dict, with 0% coverage of the actual operation-specific parameters. The description compensates by listing parameter names and defaults (e.g., start, end, unmonitored, include_artist, tags) in function signatures. It falls short of explaining the meaning and format of each parameter, but it provides essential structural information the schema lacks.

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 'lidarr calendar operations' and enumerates two distinct operations with specific verbs and resources: 'lidarr_get_calendar(id) — Fetch a single calendar entry (album) by id' and 'lidarr_list_calendar(...) — List albums releasing in a date range.' This distinguishes it from sibling Lidarr tools and leaves no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 provides clear context for using each operation: get for a single ID, list for a date range. It also explains the overall pattern of passing an `operation` and `arguments` dict. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternative Lidarr tools, which is a minor gap given the sibling list.

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