lidarr_release_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly marks lidarr_download_release and lidarr_push_release as 'WRITE: this modifies your Lidarr instance,' and describes push_release as interacting with the download client. The other operations are implied read-only, though not stated. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 efficiently organized: a brief usage instruction followed by a dash-separated list of operations. Each entry is one line and minimally worded. Minor redundancy like 'on Lidarr' and 'your Lidarr instance' appears, but overall it 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?

For a multi-operation dispatcher with no annotations and generic schema, the description provides a reasonable overview, parameter guidance, and side-effect warnings. It does not explain return values, but an output schema exists (though not shown). It also doesn't explicitly tie to sibling tools, but the operation set is clear enough for an agent to operate.

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?

Since the schema only exposes generic `operation` and `arguments`, the description is the sole source of parameter semantics. It lists parameter names per operation (e.g., `title`, `album_id`, `artist_id`, `term`) and indicates body parameters are ReleaseResource. However, there is an inconsistency: lidarr_list_release lists `artist_id` in the signature but only mentions `album_id` as a query param, creating potential confusion.

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 opening line, 'lidarr release search operations on Lidarr,' is somewhat generic and largely restates the tool name. However, the bulleted list concretely defines five sub-operations (download, parse, list, push, search), making the tool's scope clear and distinct from sibling Lidarr tools like media_library or calendar.

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?

It instructs users to pass `operation` and an `arguments` dict, and each operation includes a one-line description of what it does and its parameters. This helps an agent decide which operation to invoke. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the operation list serves as a form of usage guidance.

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