radarr_get_config_naming_by_id

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

The description adds no behavioral traits beyond the annotation `readOnlyHint: true`. It does not mention error handling, permissions, or any side effects. Since the annotation already covers read-only safety, the description offers no additional 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 a single sentence, 'Fetch a single naming by id.' It is concise and front-loaded with the verb, containing no redundant information.

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 operation, the description is minimal but adequate with the tool name and output schema providing context. However, it does not clarify what 'naming' refers to, nor does it mention what happens if the id does not exist, so the agent must rely on the name and schema.

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 has a single required `id` parameter with no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The description only says 'by id', which essentially repeats the parameter name. It does not explain what the id represents (e.g., a configuration record ID) or how to obtain it.

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 verb 'Fetch' and specifies 'a single naming by id', which distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like `radarr_get_config_naming` that fetch the full config. However, it does not name an alternative explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus `radarr_get_config_naming` or other config-related tools, leaving the agent without criteria for selection.

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