radarr_get_command

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already conveys the read-only nature, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful context by specifying that the command is 'queued/running', which clarifies the scope. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as error handling or response details, but these are less critical given the simple operation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It conveys the essential action and resource in a compact manner. Minor grammar issue ('commands' vs 'command') but does not affect clarity or conciseness.

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 simple get-by-id tool with one parameter, a readOnlyHint, and an output schema (not shown but implied), the description covers the core purpose and parameter. It lacks some context like error conditions or how the id is used, but the presence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the tool make it sufficiently complete.

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 schema has one parameter 'id' (integer) with 0% description coverage. The description says 'by id', which largely restates the parameter name and does not provide deeper semantics about the id (e.g., where it comes from, format, or behavior when not found). The additional context 'queued/running commands' helps slightly but does not directly elaborate on the parameter.

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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and identifies the resource as 'a single queued/running commands by id'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like radarr_list_command (which lists all commands) and radarr_delete_command. The scope ('single', 'by id') makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 when you have a command id and need a single command, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like radarr_list_command. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, though the purpose itself is straightforward.

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