sonarr_list_queue

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by naming three query parameters, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, default filtering, or how the queue items are scoped. No contradiction with annotations.

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 appropriately brief with two short sentences. However, the second sentence merely lists a few parameter names without elaboration, which adds limited value while still being concise and front-loaded.

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 has 12 optional parameters and an output schema, the description only addresses the core action and three parameters. It omits critical context about pagination (page, page_size), filtering (status, quality, languages, series_ids), and inclusion flags (include_series, include_episode), leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's full capabilities.

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 input schema has zero description coverage for its 12 parameters. The description names only three (sort_key, sort_direction, protocol) and does not explain their values or the purpose of the remaining nine parameters such as page, status, quality, series_ids, or include_series. This is inadequate compensation for a schema with no parameter 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 uses a clear verb ('List') and specific resource ('download client queue items'), which distinguishes it from action-oriented sibling tools like sonarr_delete_queue and sonarr_grab_queue_item. The purpose is immediately unambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sonarr_get_queue_details, sonarr_get_queue_status, or sonarr_bulk_delete_queue. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or context where this listing is preferred.

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