radarr_get_movie_files

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and the description lists returned fields (quality, size, release group), but it does not explicitly state read-only safety, permission requirements, error behavior, or whether multiple files are returned.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a concise list of return details. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description adequately explains the return content. It could be more complete by specifying whether it returns a single file or a list, but it covers the essential purpose and return fields.

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% and the single parameter is documented as 'Radarr movie ID'. The description's phrase 'for a specific movie' aligns with this but adds no format, range, or example details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (Get) and resource (movie file information) scoped to a specific movie, and lists example fields. It distinguishes itself from the broader radarr_get_movie by focusing on files, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like radarr_get_movie or radarr_delete_movie_file. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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