tdarr_kill_file_scanner

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

No annotations exist, so the description must reveal behavioral traits. It states 'kill' but does not clarify if this is destructive, what happens to the scanner process, whether it requires permissions, or any side effects (e.g., data loss). Minimal transparency.

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?

One sentence, no unnecessary words. The key action and target are front-loaded. Highly concise.

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 low complexity (1 param, no output schema), the description is adequate but lacks details on what 'kill' entails (e.g., confirmation, irreversibility). For a destructive action, more context is needed.

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 description coverage is 100%: the single parameter 'dbID' is described as 'Library database ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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 'Kill a file scanner in progress' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the action. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like tdarr_kill_worker or tdarr_get_filescanner_status, missing a chance to distinguish its scope.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, such as waiting for the scanner to finish or using status checks. The description implies use when a scanner is 'in progress' but offers no exclusions or context.

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