sonarr_get_manual_import

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by stating what the preview shows (quality, matched series/episode, rejection reasons) and implies this is a read-only operation via the word 'preview.' However, it does not explicitly confirm non-mutating behavior, pagination details, or any side effects. The description provides moderate transparency but leaves some gaps.

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 long, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence earns its place. The first states the action and output; the second gives explicit guidance. No filler or unnecessary repetition.

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 4 parameters, but the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, what it shows, and how to proceed with the result. Since there is no output schema, the description gives a good sense of the return values. It does not mention pagination or filtering, but those are documented in the schema. Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it effectively.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema; it explains the overall operation but leaves the schema to handle individual parameter meanings. This is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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's purpose: 'Scan a folder and preview how Sonarr would match each file for manual import.' It uses a specific verb (scan/preview) and resource (folder), and distinguishes itself from the sibling sonarr_process_manual_import by positioning this as the preview step. This is unambiguous and well-differentiated.

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 explicitly names the alternative tool: 'Use sonarr_process_manual_import to confirm.' This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool (to preview) versus the alternative (to confirm/execute). It directly addresses the most relevant sibling and establishes a workflow, satisfying the 'explicit alternatives' criterion.

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