sonarr_get_metadata

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation (a read-only fetch operation). It does not add any additional behavioral context such as error handling, pagination, or permissions, but for a simple get-by-id tool, the annotation covers the most critical transparency aspect. No contradictions.

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 that is front-loaded and free of fluff. It is appropriately concise for a simple fetch operation, though it could include a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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, the presence of an output schema, and the readOnlyHint annotation, the description is adequate but not thorough. It lacks any mention of when to prefer this over list_metadata, and does not note error behavior (e.g., 404). However, the output schema likely defines the return structure, and the operation is straightforward, so this is a minor gap.

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 one required parameter 'id' (integer) with no description, and the description only mentions 'by id'. The parameter name is self-explanatory, and the description reinforces its role, but it does not add details like where the id comes from or any format restrictions. Given the low schema coverage, this is a borderline case; a more explicit explanation would improve 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 clearly states the action ('Fetch') and resource ('a single metadata providers') with a scope ('by id'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like sonarr_list_metadata (which fetches all) and create/update/delete variants. The minor grammar issue ('providers' plural) does not obscure the intended meaning.

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 does not mention that this is for retrieving a specific metadata provider by id, as opposed to listing all providers with sonarr_list_metadata, nor does it state any prerequisites or context. The usage is only implied by the tool name and schema.

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