sonarr_get_queue_status

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds little beyond the core action, with no mention of pagination, scope, or summary vs. detailed output. However, given the annotation coverage, the description doesn't need to heavily compensate; a score of 3 reflects minimal additional behavioral context.

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 with no wasted words. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded, delivering the purpose immediately.

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?

With no parameters and an output schema, the return values are covered. However, the description is sparse and doesn't clarify what 'queue status' entails or how it differs from sonarr_list_queue. Given the siblings, this is a minor gap, making it minimally complete but lacking contextual depth.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when no parameters need explanation; the description adds nothing extra, but none is needed.

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 status' names a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool retrieves the status of the queue. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sonarr_list_queue by focusing on 'status' rather than the queue items, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus related queue tools such as sonarr_list_queue or sonarr_get_queue_details, nor does it exclude any contexts. The agent is left without direction on selection.

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