sonarr_get_qualitydefinition

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

The description discloses no behavioral traits beyond what the readOnlyHint annotation already provides. It adds no context about return behavior, error handling, or id validation. For a simple get operation, the description is consistent with annotations but adds no new information.

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, direct sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple get-by-id tool.

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, one required parameter, an output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description is nearly complete. It lacks explicit mention of what happens when the id is invalid, but that is not critical for a simple fetch operation.

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 schema_description_coverage at 0%, the description is the only source of parameter meaning. The phrase 'by id' indicates the 'id' parameter identifies which quality definition to fetch, though it doesn't elaborate on the id format or where to obtain it. This minimally compensates for the missing schema description.

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 a specific verb ('Fetch') and a resource ('quality definitions') with a clear scope ('a single ... by id'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'sonarr_list_qualitydefinition' which lists all definitions.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. The description implies usage when a specific id is known, but does not mention exclusions or refer to list_qualitydefinition. Thus, usage is implied only.

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