sonarr_get_config_naming

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read operation, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that—no mention of return format, pagination, or what exactly 'naming' includes—but it does not contradict the annotation.

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?

At two words, the description is extremely concise with zero wasted wording. However, it omits helpful qualifiers like 'configuration' that would improve clarity, though it's still efficient.

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 simple parameterless GET tool with an output schema and readOnly annotation, the description is minimally sufficient. But it doesn't clarify what 'naming' refers to or differentiate from sibling list/get operations, so it's not fully 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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to describe. Baseline 4 applies because the description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the schema fully covers the empty parameter list.

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 naming.' has a specific verb (List) and a resource (naming), but it is ambiguous—'naming' could refer to naming configuration or naming examples, and it does not distinguish from sibling tools like sonarr_list_config_naming_examples or sonarr_get_config_naming_by_id.

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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context that would help an agent decide between this tool and similar get/list tools.

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