sonarr_get_queue_details

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, but the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not describe pagination, filtering semantics, or what constitutes 'details', so the description provides no 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 under-specified sentence. It is not concise in a useful way; it omits critical information and does not front-load any actionable details, making it closer to a stub than a concise summary.

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 tool with four optional parameters, no schema descriptions, and only a readOnlyHint annotation, this description is wholly insufficient. Even with an output schema present, the agent cannot determine what the tool returns or how to tailor requests, making the description inadequate for correct invocation.

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 needed to explain the four optional parameters. It fails entirely to elaborate on series_id, episode_ids, include_series, or include_episode, leaving the agent with no semantic understanding of how to populate them.

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 queue details' is essentially a restatement of the tool name 'sonarr_get_queue_details', lacking any specific scope or differentiation. It does not explain what 'details' means or how this tool differs from closely named siblings like sonarr_list_queue.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of the optional parameters, filtering scenarios, or relationships with other queue-related endpoints such as sonarr_list_queue or sonarr_get_queue_status.

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