list_commands

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses the scope (running/recent commands), the output contents (status, duration), and implicitly indicates a read-only list operation. It does not mention return format, pagination, or any operational caveats, but for a simple list tool this is acceptable.

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 clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the resource and scope, then names the output fields, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 list operation with no output schema, the description provides the essential meaning and output highlights. It could be more explicit about whether the list is limited to Sonarr's internal command system or includes all recent activity, but the phrasing 'currently running or has recently run' gives sufficient boundaries.

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 takes zero parameters, so the input schema fully covers the parameter surface. With no parameters to explain, the description needs no additional parameter-level detail, and the baseline of 4 applies.

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 specific action (list), resource (commands), and scope (currently running or recently run), plus the output fields (status and duration). This distinguishes it from get_command, which targets a single command, and from list_scheduled_tasks, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 for when the tool is appropriate: inspecting the state of command executions. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternative tools for related tasks, so the routing decision is left largely to inference.

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