diagnose_import

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what the read actually produces (probable cause plus a concrete fix, with example causes like remote path mapping, permissions, sample, fake release), which is useful context beyond the annotations. It doesn't discuss cost or latency of aggregating multiple data sources, but for a read-only diagnostic that is a minor gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then supporting detail and examples; every sentence earns its place. Slightly verbose in the parenthetical cause list, but it is informative rather than filler.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering read-only safety, the description only needs to orient usage, which it does. It is complete enough for a 2-parameter diagnostic tool; only the lack of an explicit alternative-tool pointer keeps it from a 5.

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 100% and both parameters (service enum, optional queue_id) are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description reinforces the breadth of what is inspected but adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Diagnose why a download is not being imported') followed by an enumeration of the sources it combines (queue status messages, Sonarr/Radarr rejections, path visibility) and the kind of answer it produces. An agent can distinguish this from manual_import, get_queue, or find_stalled_downloads without opening a schema.

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?

The examples ('Why isn't S03E04 importing?', 'Why is everything stuck in importBlocked?') give concrete usage triggers, and the queue_id description tells the agent when to scope to one item versus check everything. It stops short of naming the sibling to use instead (e.g., find_stalled_downloads for locating stuck items).

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