seerr_list_settings_radarr

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read operation, so the description does not need to repeat that. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context such as whether it returns full configuration details, whether authentication is required, or any side effects. It is consistent with the annotation but offers minimal added value beyond 'get'.

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 short sentence, highly concise and front-loaded with the core action. It earns its place by stating the purpose, though it is terse. No unnecessary words are included.

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's simplicity (no parameters, output schema provided), the description is somewhat complete, but it does not provide context about what 'Radarr settings' entails or what the output represents. The output schema may cover return values, but the description lacks any descriptive context that would help an agent understand the tool's role within the broader settings management workflow.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The schema already covers all (zero) parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description is not misleading and adds no conflicting information.

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 'Get Radarr settings' clearly expresses the action (get) and the resource (Radarr settings). The tool name includes 'radarr', which distinguishes it from other settings getters. However, it does not elaborate on what specific settings are included, but with the sibling tool names, the purpose is clear enough.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Sibling tools like seerr_create_settings_radarr or seerr_update_settings_radarr exist, but the description does not distinguish when to use list over the others.

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