radarr_list_history_movie

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

The readOnlyHint annotation correctly indicates a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by mentioning query parameters, but it does not disclose the true nature of the operation (likely history listing) or any filtering behavior beyond parameter names. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 at two sentences, but the second sentence is redundant because the parameters are already visible in the input schema. The brevity borders on under-specification rather than efficient communication, so it only partially earns its place.

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?

The description is incomplete for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool. It omits the include_movie parameter, fails to clarify whether the tool returns movies or history entries, and lacks context on how this relates to sibling history tools. Even with an output schema, the description leaves too much ambiguity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only lists 'movie_id' and 'event_type' without explaining their meaning or mentioning the 'include_movie' parameter. The words add no semantic value beyond the schema's parameter names.

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 says 'List movies.' which is vague and likely misleading. The tool name includes 'history' and sibling tools include radarr_list_movie and radarr_list_history, so the description does not distinguish this tool from those or clarify that it lists movie history filtered by movie_id/event_type. It restates a generic action without specifying the actual resource.

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. The description does not mention when the query parameters are appropriate or when to prefer this over radarr_list_history or radarr_list_movie, leaving the agent without explicit usage context.

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