sonarr_trigger_cutoff_unmet_search

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It clearly states the search scope (all monitored episodes with files below quality cutoff), but it does not disclose operational characteristics such as whether the trigger is asynchronous, how to monitor command status, or potential impact on the download queue. The description is not misleading but leaves out important behavioral context.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Trigger a search') and immediately specifies the scope. Every word contributes meaning, with no superfluous text.

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 that there are no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is quite complete for its purpose. It clearly defines what the trigger does and what it targets. However, it could be improved by mentioning how to check the command status or that the operation is asynchronous, but this is a minor gap given the zero-parameter nature and existing sibling tools like sonarr_get_command_status.

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 baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description adds value by clarifying exactly what the tool operates on—episodes that are monitored, have a file, and lack quality cutoff compliance. No parameter documentation is needed, and the description is meaningful despite having 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 uses a specific verb ('Trigger a search') and clearly defines the resource: 'all monitored episodes that have a file but have not met the quality cutoff (upgrade candidates)'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sonarr_search_missing (missing episodes) and sonarr_search_episode (specific episode).

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 you want to find upgrade candidates, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like sonarr_get_wanted_cutoff (which lists candidates without triggering a search) or sonarr_search_missing. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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