radarr_get_parse

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates the operation is safe and read-only. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as authentication needs, rate limits, or response structure, but it does not contradict the annotation.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and avoids redundancy with the schema.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks detail on what parsing results contain or any edge cases. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 description explicitly identifies 'title' as a query parameter, adding meaning beyond the bare schema property. With 0% schema description coverage, this minimal compensation is sufficient for a single, self-explanatory parameter.

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 (list) and resource (title parsing results), which is specific and distinguishes the tool by its unique parsing focus. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, though no sibling tools for parsing exist.

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 the tool is used to obtain parsing results for a given title, but it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. Given the absence of sibling parse tools, the lack of exclusions is acceptable but still limits clarity.

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