radarr_get_exclusions

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read operation, and the description's 'Fetch' is consistent. No additional behavioral context is provided (e.g., response details, error cases), but for a simple get-by-id tool with annotations, 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 has a single required parameter, an output schema, and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. No need to explain return values since the output schema covers that.

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%, and the description only says 'by id', essentially restating the schema's id parameter. It does not explain what the id represents beyond the tool name or add constraints, so it fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 clearly identifies the resource as a single import list exclusion looked up by id. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like radarr_list_exclusions, which retrieve collections.

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 phrase 'Fetch a single ... by id' clearly implies this tool should be used when a specific exclusion id is known, versus list operations for getting all exclusions. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for this simple read operation.

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