sonarr_get_quality_profiles

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It states that the tool retrieves quality profiles and lists output elements, but does not mention safety (e.g., read-only nature), authentication needs, or any side effects. Basic transparency is present but lacks depth.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core function and output details with no redundant words. Every part is necessary and efficiently structured.

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 lacking an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns. It covers the key aspects (allowed qualities, upgrade settings, custom format scores). However, it could be more structured or mention the format (e.g., JSON) or typical use cases.

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 zero parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the output content in detail, adding meaning beyond the empty schema. This meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('quality profiles'), and the context ('from Sonarr (TV)'), distinguishing it from similar tools for other services like Lidarr or Radarr. It also specifies the content returned: allowed qualities, upgrade settings, and custom format scores.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives among the many sibling tools. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios that would make this tool the preferred choice.

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