sonarr_get_naming

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

The description implies a read-only operation via the verb 'Get,' but it does not explicitly disclose any behavioral traits such as response format, authentication requirements, or side effects. With no annotations available, this minimal transparency is adequate for a simple getter but lacks depth.

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, front-loaded sentence that fully captures the tool's purpose. Every word is informative, with no filler 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential 'what' and 'where'. It is complete enough for an agent to know what to expect, though it could mention the return value structure if not for the absence of an output schema.

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?

Since the tool has zero parameters, there is nothing to explain beyond the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but this is acceptable given the empty parameter set, meriting the baseline score.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with a precise resource ('file and folder naming configuration') and clarifies the source ('Sonarr (TV)'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like trash_get_naming, which deals with naming recommendations rather than the actual Sonarr configuration.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as trash_get_naming. The description states only what the tool does, not the context or exclusions, so an agent has no information to decide between similar-looking tools.

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