seerr_service_arr

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

The annotations declare `readOnlyHint: true`, which the description supports through the get/list operation names. The description adds some context beyond annotations, such as that list operations return 'non-sensitive' data and that get operations fetch specific details like quality profiles and root folders. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavior (e.g., error handling, rate limits) that would push it higher.

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 well-structured: a brief introductory sentence followed by a bulleted list of operations. Every line is informative and necessary, with no fluff. The format makes it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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?

For a dispatcher tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers the operations and their inputs. It doesn't explain return values, but the output schema fills that gap. It could provide a concrete example of the `arguments` dict, but the instruction 'matching that operation's parameters' is sufficient given the listed parameters.

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 provides only an enum for `operation` and a generic `arguments` object with 0% description coverage. The description compensates fully by specifying each operation's expected argument (e.g., `radarr_id`, `sonarr_id`, `tmdb_id`) and clarifying that `arguments` is a dict matching those parameters. This is critical for correct usage.

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 that this tool handles Seerr service ARR operations and enumerates five specific operations with their parameters. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing exclusively on Radarr/Sonarr service operations, making the purpose 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 provides clear guidance on how to invoke the tool: pass an `operation` and an `arguments` dict matching that operation's parameters. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, the general context and operation list imply this is the tool for service-related tasks.

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