lidarr_get_naming

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that it is a read-only operation ('Get', 'Shows') and what it retrieves (naming patterns). Does not mention any side effects, authentication requirements, or limitations. Since it is a simple fetch, the transparency is adequate but could be more explicit about safety.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and resource. No wasted words, perfectly concise for the simple operation.

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 output schema, the description should explain what is returned. It states 'shows naming patterns' which is sufficient but vague. Could be improved by noting the format or that it retrieves patterns for files and folders separately. Overall complete for a simple get operation but leaves room for more detail.

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?

Input schema has no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. Description adds value by specifying that the tool shows naming patterns for both files and folders, providing context beyond the empty schema. According to guidelines, baseline for 0 params is 4, but the additional context merits a 5.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'file naming configuration from Lidarr (Music)'. Specifies it shows naming patterns for files and folders. Distinguishes from siblings like radarr_get_naming and sonarr_get_naming by mentioning the specific Lidarr instance (Music).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While siblings are for different services (Radarr, Sonarr), the description does not provide context such as 'use to view current naming setup' or 'before modifying naming patterns'. Implicitly clear from name but lacks proactive guidance.

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