radarr_get_qualityprofile_schema

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation by using 'Return', which indicates a read operation. It adds context that the response contains the schema (available fields/options), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as whether the schema is static or version-dependent. Given the annotation already indicates safety, this is sufficient but minimal.

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, clear sentence: 'Return the quality profiles schema (available fields/options).' It is concise, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler or redundant information.

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?

This is a simple schema-retrieval tool with no parameters and an output schema. The description fully covers the tool's purpose and behavior. Users know exactly what to expect: metadata about quality profiles. Nothing else is needed.

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 description does not need to explain any. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description correctly focuses on the return value rather than parameters. No additional parameter information is needed.

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 a specific verb 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource as 'quality profiles schema', distinguishing it from sibling tools like radarr_list_qualityprofile (list actual profiles) and radarr_get_qualityprofile (get a specific profile). It also clarifies that the tool returns schema metadata (available fields/options), not actual profiles.

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 discover available fields/options when constructing a quality profile, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like creating or updating a quality profile. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative contexts, making this adequate but not explicit.

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