radarr_get_customformat

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what is already in the annotation and schema—no mention of error handling, response shape, or side effects. For a read-only getter with an output schema, some additional context (e.g., 404 behavior) would be expected.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys all essential meaning without unnecessary words or repetitions. The grammatical error ('custom formats' vs 'custom format') is minor and does not affect clarity.

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 the tool's simplicity (one required parameter), the read-only annotation, and the existence of an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It could mention that the ID is the Radarr-specific custom format ID or that it returns the full custom format object, but the output schema and name fill those gaps. It adequately covers the essential purpose.

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's phrase 'by id' clarifies that the required 'id' parameter is the custom format's identifier. This provides meaning that the bare schema (integer type) lacks, compensating for the low coverage. For a single parameter, this is sufficient.

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 action (Fetch), the resource (a single custom format), and the scope (by id). This distinguishes it from the sibling list tool (radarr_list_customformat) which retrieves multiple formats.

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 the use case: when you need a single custom format by its ID. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like the list endpoint for multiple formats. Usage is clear but not explicitly contrasted with sibling tools.

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