radarr_get_qualitydefinition_limits

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

The readOnlyHint: true annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation, but the description adds no further behavioral details. It does not explain what 'limits' means, whether pagination or filtering is involved, or what the output structure is. No additional context is provided beyond 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 short, but this is under-specification rather than concise effectiveness. It lacks the word 'limits' and provides no additional useful information, making it too sparse to be genuinely helpful.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description is inadequate because it does not convey the specific scope of 'limits' and does not distinguish this tool from other quality definition list tools. With an output schema present but not detailed, the description leaves too much ambiguity 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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is inherently 100%. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but none are required here.

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 'List quality definitions' uses a clear verb and resource, but it omits the crucial word 'limits' from the tool name, making it indistinguishable from the sibling tool radarr_list_qualitydefinition. This is a vague purpose rather than a tautology, as it does convey an action, but it fails to specify the exact resource scope.

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?

There is no guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool or how it differs from similar quality definition tools like radarr_list_qualitydefinition or radarr_get_qualitydefinition. No context, alternatives, or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent without direction.

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