sonarr_get_config_naming_by_id

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already declares this as a safe read operation, and the description's 'Fetch' is consistent. No additional behavioral context (e.g., return format, potential null result, authentication) is provided, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need. The description adds minimal value beyond 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and target. There is no extraneous information, and every part of the sentence earns its place.

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 read-only fetch with one integer parameter and an output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the operation and target, and the output schema covers the return shape. It doesn't mention listing alternatives, but that falls under usage guidelines rather than completeness of the operation itself. Given the low complexity, this is adequate.

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 compensates by clarifying that the lone 'id' parameter is the identifier of the naming config to fetch. Although the parameter name and tool name are redundant, the description ties the id to the 'naming' resource, which is meaningful beyond the bare schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and identifies the resource as 'naming' with the scope 'by id', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like sonarr_get_config_naming (which likely lists all) and sonarr_update_config_naming (which modifies). The purpose is unambiguous for a single-item retrieval.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sonarr_get_config_naming for listing all configs. It only implies the use case via the phrase 'by id', but lacks any exclusions or alternative tool mentions. This leaves the agent to infer from the tool name rather than the description.

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