sonarr_get_quality_profile

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 uses 'Get' implying a read-only operation and mentions 'full details', but it does not disclose error responses, not-found behavior, or authentication requirements. It adds some context about included elements, but more explicit safety/behavioral disclosure would be beneficial.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and the second sentence provides a practical usage prerequisite. No redundancy or wasted words.

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 simple single-get tool, the description covers what it returns (full details with quality items and custom format scores) and a key use case (before update). Without an output schema, it doesn't specify the exact response shape or error cases, leaving minor gaps, but overall it is complete enough for this tool complexity.

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 full description coverage (100%) for profileId, noting it comes from sonarr_get_quality_profiles. The tool description repeats 'by ID' but adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'a single Sonarr quality profile by ID', clearly distinguishing it from sibling 'sonarr_get_quality_profiles' (plural). It also specifies key content (quality items, custom format scores), which removes ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly states 'Required before calling sonarr_update_quality_profile', giving a concrete when-to-use. It does not explicitly name alternatives like sonarr_get_quality_profiles, but the 'single by ID' scope implies when to choose this over the list version, so usage context is clear.

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