autobrr_lists

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does a good job by tagging each operation with WRITE or DESTRUCTIVE labels, e.g., 'DESTRUCTIVE: this deletes data.' This discloses the mutation risk. However, it does not mention other behavior like idempotency, response format, or whether operations require the autobrr instance to be online, leaving some transparency gap.

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 concise: one intro sentence and a structured bullet list. Each bullet names the operation and a one-line effect. There is no filler; every sentence adds value. The format is easily scannable for an agent deciding which operation to call.

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 dispatcher with six operations, the description covers all operations and their mutation/destructive nature. An output schema exists (per context signals), so return values need not be described. However, it lacks broader context like prerequisites (e.g., autobrr instance connection), error conditions, or ordering dependencies between operations, which would round out completeness.

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 input schema has two parameters: operation (enum) and arguments (freeform dict). The description provides no explicit explanation of the 'arguments' parameter, but the bullet signatures (e.g., 'autobrr_create_list(body={})', 'autobrr_delete_list(list_id)') hint at the expected keys. With 0% schema description coverage, this is helpful but incomplete—full parameter semantics for each operation are not defined.

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 identifies this as a dispatch tool for autobrr list operations, listing specific verbs (create, delete, list, refresh, update) against 'import list' resources. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like autobrr_filters or autobrr_indexers. However, the opening line 'autobrr lists operations on autobrr' is ambiguous (could read as 'lists' the noun or 'lists' the verb), and the resource is only fully clear from the bullet examples.

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 bullet list implies when to use the tool: 'if you need to create, delete, list, refresh, or update import lists, use this operation.' There is no explicit statement of when NOT to use it or alternatives (e.g., 'for filters, use autobrr_filters'). The guidance is implicit via operation names, not explicit comparative guidance.

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