sonarr_get_remotepathmapping

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read operation, and the description's 'Fetch' aligns with that. However, the description adds no further behavioral details such as potential 404 handling, response structure, or any constraints. It is consistent but not enriched 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 concise sentence that directly states the action and target. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, using no unnecessary words or filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 low complexity, the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), and the readOnlyHint annotation, the description is essentially complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It could be slightly more specific about what a remote path mapping is, but this is not necessary for a simple get-by-id 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?

The schema only specifies an integer 'id' without any description (0% coverage). The description's 'by id' explicitly clarifies that the parameter is the identifier of the mapping to fetch, adding essential meaning. For a single simple parameter, this is sufficient compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.

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), the resource (remote path mappings), and the scope (a single one by id). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sonarr_list_remotepathmapping, which lists all mappings. The slight grammar issue ('mappings' vs 'mapping') does not obscure 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?

Usage context is implied: use this tool when you have a specific id to retrieve one remote path mapping. However, there are no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use instructions. The sibling list tool is not mentioned as an alternative for discovering ids, so the guidance is minimal but acceptable for such a simple operation.

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