radarr_get_customformat_schema

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds minimal context by noting the schema contains 'available fields/options', but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, response size, or pagination. However, with annotations covering the safety profile and for a trivial schema fetch, this is adequate.

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?

One sentence of eight words, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning. No wasted phrasing.

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 tool with no parameters, a readOnlyHint, and an existing output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool returns without needing to repeat output schema information. The agent can select and invoke it correctly among dozens of sibling tools.

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 zero parameters, so the description need not explain parameter semantics. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no irrelevant parameter information.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'Return' and identifies the resource as 'custom formats schema' with clarification '(available fields/options)'. It clearly separates this from sibling tools like radarr_list_customformat (which lists formats) and radarr_get_customformat (which retrieves a single format), though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used before creating or updating custom formats, nor does it note any exclusions. The usage is implied only from the resource name.

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