radarr_get_queue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal extra context ('current') beyond the annotations, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as permissions or rate limits. It is consistent with the annotations, so no contradiction.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'Get the current Radarr download queue'. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary detail or repetition. It is optimally concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, and clear annotations), the description adequately covers the essentials. It does not explain the return format or queue contents, but for a well-known domain like Radarr, this is sufficient. The absence of an output schema is offset by the clarity of the tool's purpose.

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 schema provides a full description for the only parameter 'limit' (Max results to return, default: 200), giving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add further meaning or context about how the parameter interacts with the queue, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already handles the semantics.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and identifies an exact resource: 'the current Radarr download queue'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sonarr_get_queue (for Sonarr) and radarr_get_movies (for movies), leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 provides clear context by specifying 'current', indicating this returns the live download queue rather than historical data. It does not name alternatives, but the target use is self-evident for an agent familiar with Radarr. No explicit exclusions are mentioned, but none are necessary for such a straightforward getter.

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