radarr_get_quality_profiles

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the output content (allowed qualities, upgrade settings, custom format scores) but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or mention side effects, rate limits, or authorization needs. The name implies reading, but the description does not fully compensate for the lack of 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 very concise with only two sentences, each providing essential information. It avoids fluff and is front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 that there are no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns: quality profiles with allowed qualities, upgrade settings, and custom format scores. This is complete for a simple list tool, and no additional information is necessary.

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?

There are no parameters in the input schema, so the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it does not repeat schema information unreasonably. This is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 'Get detailed quality profiles from Radarr (Movies)', specifying the verb and resource. The parenthetical 'Movies' distinguishes it from sibling tools like lidarr_get_quality_profiles (music) and sonarr_get_quality_profiles (TV). This is specific and 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?

The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what it does but offers no context for decision-making, such as when it is appropriate or when to use other tools like radarr_get_movies. This is a lack of usage guidance.

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