lidarr_system_commands

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It excels at this by marking destructive operations (delete command, delete backup) and write operations (restart, restore, run command, shutdown) with clear labels like 'DESTRUCTIVE: this deletes data' and 'WRITE: this modifies your Lidarr instance.' It also explains the purpose of read-only operations, though it could add more detail on response behavior or side effects for complex operations like restore/restart.

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 longer than average, but it's well-structured as a bullet list of operations where each line contains the signature and a brief description. The opening line explains the dispatch pattern, and every listed operation earns its place. It is front-loaded with the usage pattern, and the list format aids scanning. The slight length is justified by the number of sub-operations.

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 complexity of a 22-operation dispatcher and the lack of annotations, the description provides a solid overview: it names all operations, gives brief functional descriptions, and marks mutating operations with danger labels. It does not deeply explain edge cases or prerequisites, but the output schema exists to handle return types. Some operations like lidarr_get_system_routes_duplicate could use more context, but overall the coverage is appropriate for the tool's breadth.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates. It lists each operation with its specific parameters, including defaults and example values (e.g., lidarr_list_log(page=1, page_size=10, sort_key='', sort_direction='', level=None) and lidarr_run_command(body={}) with example command names). This goes far beyond the bare schema and gives the agent enough context to construct correct arguments.

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 clearly states it handles 'lidarr system commands operations' and enumerates every available operation with a concise one-line description. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lidarr_media_library or lidarr_release_search, as it is specifically the system command dispatcher.

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 opening sentence gives explicit instructions: 'Pass operation and an arguments dict matching that operation's parameters.' Each listed operation also includes its parameters, making it clear how to invoke it. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the domain separation from sibling tools is obvious, so the context is clear and practical.

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