radarr_get_metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as error handling, return format, or side effects. It merely restates the tool's function without enriching the agent's understanding.

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 of six words, front-loading the core action and object. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 low complexity (one required parameter, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description is adequate. It tells the agent exactly what to do, and the readOnlyHint covers safety. It lacks details about non-existent IDs or response specifics, but these are less critical for a simple fetch.

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?

With a single integer parameter 'id' and 0% schema description coverage, the description at least clarifies that 'id' is the identifier of the metadata provider to fetch. It adds minimal meaning beyond the property name, but does not explain where to find the id or any constraints.

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 names the resource 'metadata providers' (grammatically awkward but unambiguous). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'a single ... by id', contrasting with list operations like radarr_list_metadata.

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: use this to retrieve one specific metadata provider by its ID. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., use radarr_list_metadata to fetch all providers) or provide any when-to-use guidance beyond the obvious.

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