radarr_get_movie_folder

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, but the description adds no extra behavioral context such as error handling, return format, or permission requirements. It simply restates the action; there is no disclosure of what happens if the id does not exist or whether additional scoping applies.

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, short sentence that is front-loaded and free of filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple fetch operation, though it sacrifices informational richness for brevity.

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?

With a readOnlyHint annotation and an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return values or safety. However, the tool is part of a large sibling set with similar folder resources, and the description does not clarify the specific 'movie folder' concept, which could lead to misuse. It is minimally viable but lacks contextual grounding.

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 describes id as an integer, and the description says 'by id', which maps cleanly to the parameter. However, schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain what the id represents (e.g., folder ID vs. movie ID), any format constraints, or how to obtain it. This is only minimal compensation for the schema's lack of 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 clearly states the action ('Fetch'), resource ('a single folder'), and scope ('by id'), which distinguishes it from list operations. However, it omits the word 'movie', relying on the tool name to clarify what kind of folder, and there are other folder-related tools (e.g., radarr_get_rootfolder) that make this slightly ambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like radarr_list_rootfolder or radarr_get_rootfolder. It does not mention preconditions, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer that it should be used when a specific folder id is known.

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