sonarr_get_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a read operation ('Get') and that blank seriesId returns recent activity, but does not state it is read-only, discuss pagination behavior, or mention any side effects. The minimal behavioral disclosure is insufficient given the absence of annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool has three optional parameters and no output schema. The description sufficiently covers the basic use cases: retrieving history and filtering by series. It does not mention return structure or pagination defaults, but those are partially present in the schema. For a straightforward read tool, the description is adequately complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some meaning by clarifying that seriesId filtering is optional and that leaving it blank returns all series activity, but page and pageSize are only described in the schema. Overall, the description adds marginal value beyond the schema.

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 tool retrieves download history, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('download history'). It additionally explains the filtering modes, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like queue or blocklist.

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 concrete usage context: filter by seriesId or leave blank for recent activity across all series. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the guidance on both filtering modes is clear.

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