sonarr_get_system_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The verb 'List' clearly implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is transparent enough for this simple tool. It also indicates the kind of data returned. However, it does not explicitly state safety traits like 'does not modify data' or mention any potential rate limits, though these are unlikely for a list operation.

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 sentence that is both concise and front-loaded with the key action ('List all scheduled background tasks') followed by relevant output details. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant or excessive information.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete: it explains what the tool does and what information is returned (last/next run times and current status). There are no complex contexts, side effects, or prerequisites that need further elaboration.

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, and the input schema is an empty object. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it accurately reflects that no input is required. This aligns with the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters.

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 function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all scheduled background tasks in Sonarr'), and specifies the output details (last/next run times and current status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools which operate on other resources like health, quality profiles, or series.

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 when to use the tool (when you need information about scheduled background tasks) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternative tools or state when not to use it. Sibling tools like arr_status or sonarr_get_health could potentially overlap in status information, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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