radarr_test_importlist

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

The description explicitly adds 'WRITE: this modifies your Radarr instance,' which reinforces the readOnlyHint=false annotation and provides a clear side-effect warning. It also mentions 'Returns validation results' but does not detail what the results contain or whether the operation is destructive. It adds a small amount of value beyond 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 very short and has a reasonable structure (action → result → warning), but the odd 'Test test' phrasing wastes space and adds confusion. It is concise in length but not effective in delivery.

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 a body parameter that accepts arbitrary properties and a force_test boolean, the description fails to provide essential context about what is being tested and how to construct valid requests. It also doesn't clarify the distinction from the sibling tool radarr_test_all_importlist, making the description incomplete for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain the body and force_test parameters, but it only mentions force_test by name without explaining its effect, and body is not mentioned at all. The schema shows body as an arbitrary object, but the description offers no guidance on what to put in it.

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 opens with 'Test test (optionally force_test).' which is a confusing tautology that doesn't identify the target resource (import lists). It mentions 'Returns validation results' but fails to clearly state that this tool tests a specific import list configuration. The purpose is vague, though the name hints at the resource.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like radarr_test_all_importlist or radarr_test_downloadclient. The description only gives a generic action and a write warning, with no context for choosing this tool.

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