list_remote_path_mappings

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the core behavior (listing mappings, not testing or modifying) and clarifies the path-translation semantics. It doesn't discuss read-only guarantees, but with zero annotations and no mutation verbs, the description is still transparent enough about what the operation does.

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 one sentence, immediately states the action and resource, and then adds only a short clarifying clause. Every phrase earns its place; no filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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 that the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential conceptual context. It could mention that the result is just a list of mappings, but the verb 'List' already implies that. Overall, the agent has enough information to call this correctly.

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 there is no schema to compensate for. The description correctly does not invent any parameter-like details, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is justified because the no-parameter configuration requires no additional semantic guidance.

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') with a clear resource ('remote path mappings') and immediately explains the core concept in plain terms: translating download-client paths on another host to paths Sonarr can read. This is far more informative than a simple glossary definition, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools.

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 conveys when this is used — when Sonarr needs to interpret paths reported by a download client on another host. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like add_remote_path_mapping/delete_remote_path_mapping, but siblings nearby make the context fairly clear without needing an explicit exclusion.

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