prowlarr_history

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context by describing the nature of the operations (history queries) and specific parameter quirks (e.g., lists of ints, event_type enums). It does not contradict the read-only hint and avoids any misleading side-effect language.

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 structured as a list of operations, with each line containing complete, non-redundant parameter information. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff, and the most critical instruction (pass operation and arguments) is front-loaded.

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 this tool dispatches multiple operations, the description covers all three operations with sufficient parameter detail for correct invocation. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described. The description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 is generic (operation + free-form arguments) with 0% schema description coverage. The description compensates fully by listing each operation's exact parameter names, types, defaults, and example enum values (e.g., event_type='indexerQuery'). This is essential for correctly constructing the arguments dict and goes far beyond the schema.

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 explicitly names 'history operations on Prowlarr' and lists three concrete operations (prowlarr_list_history, prowlarr_list_history_indexer, prowlarr_list_history_since), clearly distinguishing this tool from sibling admin tools like prowlarr_search or prowlarr_indexers.

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 provides clear usage guidance by requiring an `operation` and an `arguments` dict, and details each operation's parameters. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the domain is so distinct that the when-to-use is implied. Specific conditions for choosing among the three history operations are conveyed through their parameter lists.

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