radarr_list_qualityprofile

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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond what the readOnlyHint annotation already provides. It does not contradict the annotation. Given the tool is a simple read-only list with zero parameters, the lack of additional behavioral detail is acceptable, but the description itself contributes minimal transparency.

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 sentence, 'List quality profiles.' with no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded, earning a top score for efficiency.

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?

This is a very simple tool with no parameters, a readOnly annotation, and an output schema. The description sufficiently conveys the operation. While it doesn't elaborate on the contents of the response or ordering, the output schema covers the return structure, making the description complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it.

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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema has 100% coverage (no properties to document). As per the guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameter info is needed. The description correctly adds no parameter details.

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 ('List') and the resource ('quality profiles'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like radarr_get_qualityprofile or radarr_list_releaseprofile, though the resource is distinct.

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. There is no mention of when to choose 'list' over 'get' or other comparison tools. The usage is implied (to retrieve all quality profiles), but no explicit context or exclusions are stated.

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