sonarr_trigger_rescan_series

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the scope ('all series') and purpose, but does not disclose side effects, destructiveness, or performance impact of a full disk scan. Lack of this information is a significant gap for a trigger command.

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-formed sentence that immediately states the action and purpose. There is no redundant wording or filler, making it highly concise and front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter command with no output schema, the description provides the core purpose but omits practical details such as asynchronous execution, potential impact, and how it differs from similar sonarr_trigger_* tools. It is adequate but leaves gaps in operational context.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description correctly implies that no input is needed. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and no additional parameter explanation is necessary.

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 a specific action: rescanning the disk for all series to link unknown existing files. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sonarr_refresh_series (metadata refresh) and sonarr_trigger_downloaded_scan (scan of downloaded files). It is precise and unambiguous.

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 the use case: after manually adding files to disk that Sonarr hasn't detected. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives such as sonarr_refresh_series. The context is clear but not contrasted with similar commands.

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