radarr_get_queue_status

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

The description simply says 'List' which aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation, but it adds no additional behavioral context beyond that. It does not mention pagination, return format, or any side effects. Since annotations already cover the safety profile, the description should add extra details but does not.

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 no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation and gets straight to the point.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, an output schema, and a read-only annotation, the minimal description covers the basics. However, it lacks context about how this relates to sibling tools like radarr_list_queue or what 'status' implies, leaving some gaps for an agent trying to select the correct tool.

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 is empty with zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. According to the baseline, with 0 params, the score is 4. The description adds no parameter-related information, but it is not 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 clearly states a specific verb ('list') and resource ('download client queue items'), which conveys the tool's basic purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from closely named siblings like radarr_list_queue, leaving some ambiguity about whether this is the same or a distinct queue view.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description only states what it does without providing context on selection among the many queue-related sibling tools.

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