sonarr_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses key behaviors: it surfaces downloadId when present, supports filtering by event_type with readable aliases, notes that filtering is client-side, and mentions a note may appear when the window is not filled. This covers the tool's operational characteristics comprehensively.

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: two short sentences in the first paragraph, and a second paragraph adding specific detail about downloadId and filtering. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 the presence of an output schema (not shown) and low parameter count, the description covers the main use cases and filtering behavior. However, it does not explain pagination or the effect of the limit parameter, which could be important for large history sets.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful semantics for the event_type parameter (aliases vs canonical values, client-side filtering), but the limit parameter is not mentioned at all. This leaves one parameter without additional context beyond its default value.

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 it shows recent Sonarr history events and lists event types (grab, import, deletion). This verb+resource pair is specific and distinct from sibling tools, which are all different operations (e.g., disk space, queue, system status).

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 explains when to use the tool (to view history events) and how filtering works (client-side, with aliases). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct comparisons to sibling tools, missing some guidance for selecting among alternatives.

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