sonarr_get_quality_profiles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the nature of the output (allowed qualities, upgrade settings, custom format scores) and the verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention authentication, response format, or edge cases like empty profile lists, so transparency is adequate but not rich.

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 action, and every clause adds value. There is no redundant information or filler.

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 parameterless GET tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the resource and the data fields returned. The only gap is not clarifying the relationship to sonarr_get_quality_profile, but that is a minor omission for such a simple operation.

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, so the input schema is empty and the description does not need to explain parameter syntax. Baseline 4 applies because there are no parameter semantics to clarify.

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 resource ('quality profiles from Sonarr (TV)'), clearly identifying the tool's scope. It also lists the key contents (allowed qualities, upgrade settings, custom format scores), which distinguishes it from the singular sonarr_get_quality_profile and trash guide profile tools.

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 usage when one needs Sonarr quality profiles but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the singular sonarr_get_quality_profile or when not to use it. It provides no exclusions or named alternatives, though the 'from Sonarr' disambiguates it from trash guides.

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