radarr_list_manualimport

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation by using 'List', so no contradiction. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation—no mention of default filtering, pagination, or how the results are structured. The query params note is redundant with the schema.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it devotes space to listing params (redundant with schema) and omits one param, so it's not fully efficient. It earns a 4 for brevity but loses a point for redundancy/incompleteness.

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 output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail return values. Yet the tool needs usage context: when to list manual import candidates, how the parameters interact, and the relationship to commit_manual_import. The description is minimal and leaves these gaps, scoring a 3 as minimally viable but not complete.

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 description lists three of the four parameters (folder, download_id, movie_id) but offers no semantic explanation beyond their names. It omits the 'filter_existing_files' parameter entirely, and with 0% schema description coverage, the agent gets no added meaning. This is insufficient compensation for the schema's lack of 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('manual import candidates'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'radarr_commit_manual_import' which actually performs the import. It also separates it from 'radarr_list_importlist' which deals with different import sources.

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 when-to-use or alternative context is provided. The description does not mention that this tool is for previewing candidates before committing via radarr_commit_manual_import, nor does it note any prerequisites like needing a folder or download_id. It simply states the function without guiding selection.

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