radarr_get_queue_details

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, and the description adds little beyond that. It does not disclose whether include_movie changes the response shape, pagination behavior, or any other operational details.

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 with the core action front-loaded. It contains no fluff, though it is so brief that important details are omitted.

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?

The tool has a sibling radarr_list_queue and an undocumented include_movie parameter, yet the description provides no context on when to choose this variant or what the additional parameter does. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the gaps in parameter semantics and usage leave the description incomplete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description only mentions movie_id and completely omits include_movie. It provides no functional meaning beyond the parameter name, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states 'List download client queue items' with a clear verb and resource, making the core function understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool radarr_list_queue, which likely also lists queue items, so it misses some differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as radarr_list_queue or radarr_get_queue_status. The mention of movie_id implies it can filter by movie, but there is no explicit when/when-not context.

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