lidarr_get_metadata_profiles

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

The description implies a read-only operation with 'Get available,' which is transparent enough. However, no annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It does not explicitly state that the operation is safe or idempotent, but given the simplicity, this is sufficient. It could be slightly improved by adding 'read-only' or 'no side effects.'

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 concise: two sentences, no verbosity. The first sentence states the action, the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and why it should be used. It is complete for the tool's complexity, providing all necessary context for an agent to select and invoke it 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?

The input schema has no parameters (coverage 100%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that the output includes metadataProfileId values useful for adding artists, which adds semantic value beyond the schema. Thus, a score of 4 is warranted.

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 tool gets available metadata profiles for Lidarr and explicitly ties it to finding valid metadataProfileId values, which is a specific and useful purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like lidarr_get_quality_profiles by specifying 'metadata profiles' and their use case.

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 description explicitly says 'Use this to find valid metadataProfileId values when adding an artist,' providing clear guidance on when to invoke the tool. This is direct and actionable for an AI agent, leaving no ambiguity about its intended use.

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