radarr_get_system_task

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description adds no further behavioral context such as what data is returned, whether it includes running/completed tasks, or any filtering limitations. It does not contradict the annotation, but it also provides minimal additional value.

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 brief (two words), which is efficient and front-loaded. It loses a point for the grammatically unusual 'task' (singular) which could confuse agents expecting a plural list endpoint, and for being so terse that it verges on under-specification.

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 having an output schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the description fails to explain what 'task' refers to in the Radarr context (e.g., scheduled tasks vs. backlogs). The sibling tool radarr_get_system_task_by_id suggests a one-to-many relationship, and the description does not clarify that this tool lists all tasks. For a simple no-param list endpoint, more explicit wording like 'List all system tasks' would be expected.

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, and the schema is empty. Per the rubric, 0 parameters receive a baseline of 4 since there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable given the schema coverage is 100%.

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 task' uses a verb+resource structure, clearly indicating a list operation for system tasks. However, it is ambiguous whether it lists all tasks or a single task, and it doesn't distinguish itself from the similarly named radarr_get_system_task_by_id sibling.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like radarr_get_system_task_by_id or radarr_list_system_backup. The description lacks any context about use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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