arr_queue

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states nothing about read-only nature, auth requirements, pagination, or freshness of the queue data. For a no-annotation tool, this is a significant gap.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose first, then the parameter legend. No filler.

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?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be explained. But with zero annotations and zero schema coverage, the description leaves auth, read/write semantics, and result freshness unstated – a notable gap for a queue-inspection tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the valid values ('sonarr, radarr, or empty for both') and explains the empty default, which is valuable. However, it omits format/quoting details and doesn't clarify that empty is the default when omitted.

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?

Specific verb ('Show') and resource ('what Sonarr and Radarr are downloading right now'), explicitly scoped to two apps. No ambiguity vs. siblings like arr_status or arr_downloads.

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?

Implies usage (check current downloads), but gives no when/when-not guidance or directs to alternatives such as arr_downloads. Adequate minimum without explicit routing.

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