sonarr_get_download_clients

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' which correctly implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose whether the response is a full list of all clients, whether sensitive fields (like API keys or passwords) are masked, or any behavior around empty configurations. There is no contradiction with annotations, but the absence of annotations raises the bar.

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, clear sentence that communicates the core purpose immediately. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded, with zero unnecessary words or extra sentences.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the minimal viable information—what it retrieves and from where. However, it lacks any behavior context (e.g., return format, whether it includes disabled clients, or auth/network expectations) that would make it fully self-sufficient for an agent. Still, for a simple list-style tool, it is close to adequate.

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 schema coverage is 100% (effectively, since the schema is empty). The description's mention of 'configurations' adds minimal meaning, but with no parameters to explain, the baseline for parameter semantics is naturally high. There is no additional parameter detail needed.

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 'Get download client configurations from Sonarr (TV)' clearly identifies the action (get/list) and resource (download client configurations), scoped to Sonarr with a TV flavor. It is distinct enough from siblings like 'sonarr_get_quality_profiles' or 'sonarr_get_series', though it doesn't explicitly mention 'all' or 'list', which would add precision.

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 implies a read-only query for download client setups, which is a common need when checking or auditing Sonarr's connected download clients. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools (e.g., when you need to verify client configurations before triggering operations), and no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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