sonarr_list_wanted_cutoff

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation, but the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not explain what 'cutoff' means, whether results are paginated, how filtering works, or what the response represents. There is no contradiction, but 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?

While short, this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The two phrases convey almost no useful information and do not earn their place. A good description should be succinct yet informative; this is merely incomplete.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description leaves critical gaps: the meaning of 'cutoff', the difference from sibling tools, and the full parameter set. With 8 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description is far too minimal to be useful for invoking the tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only names two parameters (sort_key, sort_direction) without explaining their allowed values or behavior. It completely ignores the other six parameters (page, page_size, monitored, include_images, include_series, include_episode_file), which are crucial for using this listing tool effectively.

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 cutoff' is extremely terse and fails to specify what is being listed. It does not define 'cutoff' or differentiate from related tools like sonarr_list_wanted_missing or sonarr_get_wanted_cutoff. The resource is ambiguous, making it unclear whether it lists episodes, series, or something else.

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 vs alternatives. No context is provided about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. Given the presence of closely related sibling tools (wanted_missing, get_wanted_cutoff), the absence of differentiation is a significant gap.

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