radarr_list_calendar

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

The read-only behavior is already disclosed by the readOnlyHint annotation, so the description is not required to repeat it. It adds the 'upcoming' qualifier, which scopes the calendar to future releases, but it does not disclose other behavioral details such as date range interpretation or whether unmonitored items are included. With annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 very brief and front-loaded with the main action, but the second sentence 'Query params: start, end, tags.' is redundant with the input schema and adds no value. It is not misleading, but it wastes a sentence that could have been used to provide parameter semantics.

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 4 parameters, 0 required, and no schema descriptions, the description is insufficient. It omits the unmonitored parameter and lacks any details about date formats or tag syntax. While an output schema exists, the description still fails to provide sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 schema provides no descriptions for the parameters, so the description carries the burden. However, it only lists parameter names (start, end, tags) without explaining their meanings, formats, or defaults. It also omits the unmonitored parameter entirely. Since the description fails to compensate for the 0% schema coverage, the score is low.

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 the tool lists the upcoming release calendar, using the specific verb 'list' and resource 'upcoming release calendar'. This distinguishes it from other list tools in the sibling set, which target different resources (e.g., movies, quality profiles). The mention of query params further clarifies the 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. It simply describes the action and lists parameter names.

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