cleanuparr_list_seeding_rules

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates the read-only nature. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as pagination, ordering, or error handling. It does not contradict the annotation, but provides minimal value beyond the name and schema.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It concisely states the action, resource, and parameter scope.

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 (one required parameter, read-only behavior, and output schema present), the description is sufficient. It covers the purpose and parameter meaning. It could mention validation or behavior for non-existent GUIDs, but the existing output schema and clear scope make it adequate.

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 schema only defines 'download_client_id' as a string with 0% description coverage. The description adds semantic meaning by specifying it is a 'GUID', clarifying the expected format. However, it does not explain where to find the GUID or how it is used.

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 'List seeding rules for a download-client GUID' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('seeding rules') with a clear scope ('download-client GUID'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that create, update, delete, or reorder seeding rules.

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 implies when to use the tool (to retrieve seeding rules for a specific download client) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions. No guidance is given about using other list tools like list_queue_rules, though the purpose is self-evident.

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