sonarr_trigger_search

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the core action. It does not disclose that triggering a search may start downloads, that the operation is asynchronous, or what side effects may occur. The description carries some burden because annotations are sparse, yet it fails to elaborate.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key optional parameter. Every word earns its place; no wasted or redundant content.

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), the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It covers the action and the optional series scoping. A slight deduction for not mentioning side effects or expected return behavior, but overall it is complete for a trigger-style tool.

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%, so the schema already explains seriesId as 'Sonarr series ID (omit to search all missing)'. The description's phrase 'optionally for a specific series' adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema. With full schema coverage, a baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Trigger') and resource ('search for missing episodes') with an optional scope ('optionally for a specific series'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like sonarr_get_missing (which lists missing) and sonarr_search (which may search broadly), making the purpose unmistakable.

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: trigger a search for missing episodes, optionally scoped to one series. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this versus alternatives like sonarr_get_missing (to just view missing) or sonarr_search (to search based on other criteria). 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.