list_settings_sonarr

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the HTTP method and path, which is not behavioral context beyond what is obvious from a GET. It does not describe return format, auth requirements, or other side effects, but given the annotations, the bar is lower; it adds no contradictions.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence and the HTTP path. It is front-loaded with the core action, and every word serves a purpose. No fluff or redundant elaboration.

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 (no parameters), the presence of an output schema (which can convey return structure), and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It does not describe what settings are returned, but that is delegated to the output schema. The only minor gap is the lack of any mention of specific settings categories, but this is not critical for a simple GET.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to explain any parameters. It adds no parameter-specific information, but none is required.

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 clear verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('Sonarr settings'), which unambiguously identifies the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_settings_radarr by explicitly naming Sonarr, so an agent can tell them apart without needing to inspect schemas.

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. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or reference to other settings tools. The usage is implied solely by the tool name, but the description adds no explicit guidance on selection criteria.

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