sonarr_list_qualitydefinition

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination, return structure, or exclusions. It doesn't contradict the annotation, but it also doesn't enrich the behavioral model beyond what the name indicates.

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 states exactly what the tool does. It is appropriately short for a zero-parameter list operation, though it adds no extra context that could make it more useful.

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 simplicity of the tool—no parameters, read-only annotation, and a provided output schema—the description is functionally sufficient. It doesn't explicitly say 'all' or describe filtering, but the tool's name and schema imply it lists all quality definitions. The output schema handles return value documentation.

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, and the schema fully documents that (100% coverage). With no parameters, the description need not explain anything, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 quality definitions' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating a read-only listing operation. It distinguishes from 'get_qualitydefinition' by the plural 'definitions' and the list verb, though it doesn't explicitly name 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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus related tools like 'sonarr_get_qualitydefinition' or 'sonarr_get_qualitydefinition_limits'. The description only states the action, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name.

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