sonarr_get_wanted_cutoff

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately conveys that the tool returns a paginated list and defines the filtering criteria (has a file but below quality cutoff), which adds value beyond the schema. However, it does not mention sort order, whether only monitored episodes are included, or potential error conditions.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and key criteria. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy 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 simple list tool with only optional pagination params and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It clearly defines the returned items. A minor gap is lack of mention of filtering by monitored status or sort order, but these are not critical for the tool's core purpose.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for both parameters (page and pageSize), each with descriptive labels and defaults. The description does not add param-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('paginated list of episodes that have a file but have not met the quality cutoff'), and explicitly labels them as 'upgrade candidates'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like sonarr_get_wanted_missing, which likely targets episodes without files.

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 usage context is implied by the description (use when you need upgrade candidates), but there is no explicit mention of alternatives or exclusions. The agent can infer when to use it from the description, but lacks a direct comparison to sibling tools.

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