radarr_get_metadata_schema

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a read-only operation. The description adds the scope 'available fields/options' but does not disclose return format or other behavioral details. It does not contradict the annotation, and with the annotation present, the description provides minimal additional context.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with no unnecessary words or repetition. It is perfectly 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 zero-parameter, read-only, schema-returning nature of this tool, the description is complete. The output schema exists, so return values are covered there, and the description plus sibling tool names provide sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the empty input schema and 100% coverage mean there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately does not invent or explain parameters.

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 'Return the metadata providers schema (available fields/options)' clearly states the tool's action (return) and resource (metadata providers schema), with a helpful clarification of what the schema contains. This distinguishes it from related tools like radarr_get_metadata (which retrieves a specific provider) and radarr_list_metadata (which lists providers).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other schema endpoints or metadata listing tools. The usage is implied by the name and context, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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