sonarr_get_parse

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'List' aligns with that, so there is no contradiction. However, beyond this, the description adds no behavioral details such as what happens with empty params, whether results are filtered by either or both fields, or the return structure, which is partially covered by the output schema.

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 extremely brief and front-loaded with the main purpose. The second sentence about query params is redundant with the schema but harmless; there is no fluff or unnecessary words.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, and the output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere. However, the description leaves gaps around what 'title parsing' entails and how the two optional parameters interact, making it adequate but 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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It merely repeats the parameter names without explaining their meaning or how they affect parsing results, offering little value beyond the schema's property names.

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 verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'title parsing results', clearly indicating this is a retrieval operation for parse results. This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools, none of which involve parsing.

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 gives little guidance on when to use this tool; it only states that query parameters 'title' and 'path' are available. There are no explicit alternatives or exclusions, and no context on scenarios like testing a parsed title before adding a series.

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