radarr_list_qualitydefinition

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation, and the description aligns with that. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., no mention of response size, ordering, or lack of filtering). With annotations covering the safety profile, 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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's action and resource. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundancy, making it optimally concise for its trivial purpose.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema, the description is fully complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does, and the output schema covers return details. No additional context is necessary.

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 coverage is 100% (empty). The description needs to add nothing beyond the schema, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, which is fitting here.

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 quality definitions' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('quality definitions'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_qualitydefinition' (singular) and update operations. It is unambiguous and directly states the tool's purpose.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_qualitydefinition' or 'get_qualitydefinition_limits'. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or when to prefer this list operation over other quality-definition tools.

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