list_remote_path_mappings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the operation is 'List' (a read-only action) and explains the mapping orientation, but it does not detail the return format, pagination, error cases, or authorization needs. The diagnostic hint adds context but not deep behavioral 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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first defines the action and resource, the second adds a useful diagnostic note. The information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema list tool, the description is largely complete: it defines the resource, the mapping direction, and a common use case. It could mention what fields are returned, but the mapping-direction definition partially compensates for the absence of an output schema.

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 baseline is 4. The description adds semantic value by explaining what a remote path mapping is (download client path -> Radarr path), which helps the agent interpret results. No parameter-level detail is necessary.

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 ('List') and resource ('remote path mappings'), and defines the mapping direction as 'download client path -> Radarr path,' which is unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools, none of which overlap with this functionality.

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 a clear diagnostic context: wrong mappings are the usual cause of 'file not found' import failures, implying when an agent should use this tool. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but there are no sibling tools with similar functionality, so the guidance is sufficient.

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