sonarr_review_setup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states the tool 'returns' data, implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm it makes no changes. The phrase 'suggest improvements' could be misinterpreted as the tool generating recommendations, whereas it likely only returns configuration data for the agent to analyze. It also does not disclose potential performance cost from aggregating multiple settings.

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?

Three sentences, each with a clear purpose: classification, content list, and usage guidance. No redundant or vague wording.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description lists the main categories of returned data, which is sufficient for an agent to decide when to call it. It could be improved by explicitly stating read-only behavior and whether the output is a structured summary, but the current coverage is adequate for broad selection and invocation.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema already covers everything; the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter-specific information but also does not need to.

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 identifies this as a configuration review tool for Sonarr, enumerating the specific data areas it returns (quality profiles, download clients, naming, storage, indexers, health). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that each fetch a single setting, such as sonarr_get_quality_profiles or sonarr_get_health.

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 final sentence, 'Use this to analyse the setup and suggest improvements,' gives a concrete use case. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over individual getters (e.g., if only health is needed), relying instead on the 'in one call' aggregation to imply a broader need.

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