radarr_test_all_notification

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

The description discloses that it is a write operation that modifies the Radarr instance, which adds context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It also mentions returns validation results. However, it does not describe the nature of the modification (e.g., sends test notifications) or potential side effects. No contradiction with annotations.

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 but poorly structured. 'Test testall' is confusing and not a clear verb phrase. The parenthetical '(optionally force_test)' adds confusion since no such parameter exists. It could be more concise and clear in one sentence.

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 0-parameter tool with an output schema, the description should clearly state the scope (all notifications) and the action (testing). It fails to do so, using vague 'testall' without linking to notification context. The write warning is present, but the core behavior is not adequately described.

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 has zero parameters, so no parameter descriptions should be needed. However, the description mentions 'optionally force_test,' a parameter that does not exist in the input schema, which is misleading. This lowers the score below the baseline for 0-param tools.

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 says 'Test testall' which is ambiguous and fails to specify the resource (notifications). It mentions 'Returns validation results' but the primary action is unclear. Without reading the tool name, it's hard to understand what 'testall' refers to, and it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like radarr_test_notification.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, situations, or exclusions. The description only warns about modification but gives no usage context.

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