prowlarr_search

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

With no annotations, the description discloses important behavioral details: return types (base64 string, XML string, status JSON), side effects (sending to download clients), and prerequisites (e.g., 'get one from a prowlarr_search_releases result'). It does not cover auth or rate limits, but provides solid operational transparency.

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 long but highly structured with a bullet list, each line containing the operation signature and a concise explanation. There is no filler; every sentence adds value. The opening instructions on how to pass `operation` and `arguments` are front-loaded and clear.

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 description covers all six operations listed in the enum, their parameters, and their return values. It also clarifies how to construct the arguments dict. Given the complexity and lack of schema detail, this is fully complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully by giving a complete signature for every operation and explaining key parameters (e.g., 'id is the indexer id', 'query is the search term', 'repeat the param for each'). This is far beyond baseline and makes invocation reliable.

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 this tool handles Prowlarr search operations and enumerates all six sub-operations with specific verbs (e.g., 'Search every indexer', 'Download a release', 'Send a release'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on search and related release operations, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 sub-operation descriptions provide clear context for when to use each (e.g., 'Query a single indexer' vs 'Search every indexer'), and the tool name implies its role relative to sibling categories. However, it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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