profilarr_list_arr_instances

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

The description adds a valuable behavioral disclosure: 'Secrets (api_key) are stripped.' This goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, informing the agent that sensitive data will be redacted from the response. This is critical for setting expectations about the returned data. No contradiction with 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 two concise sentences: the primary purpose and the important secret-stripping note. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or repetition. Every word 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?

This is a simple read-only listing tool with no parameters, an output schema present, and annotations. The description fully covers the essential behavior: listing instances and warning about secret redaction. With the output schema providing return structure, nothing further is needed.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter meaning. Per rubric, zero parameters warrant a baseline of 4.

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 states the tool's function: 'List connected Radarr/Sonarr instances.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('connected Radarr/Sonarr instances'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_announcements or list_databases, which target different resources.

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 by stating the resource it lists, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool vs. alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. Since there are several sibling list tools, the lack of explicit 'when to use' guidance leaves the agent to infer from the name and resource type.

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