radarr_get_localization_language

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

The annotation `readOnlyHint: true` already discloses the safe read-only nature, and the description 'List' is consistent with that. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context such as pagination, ordering, localization scope, or what constitutes a 'language' here. Since annotations carry the safety profile, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 consists of only two words, 'List languages.', with zero filler and immediate clarity. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a parameterless list operation.

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 simplicity (0 params, output schema exists, annotations provide safety), the description might be sufficient on its own. However, the presence of sibling tools like radarr_list_language and radarr_get_language creates ambiguity that the description fails to resolve. It does not clarify what 'localization language' specifically means, making the context incomplete for tool selection.

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, and schema description coverage is 100% vacuously. Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details because there are none to clarify.

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 languages.' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly stating what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like radarr_list_language and radarr_get_language, which likely serve similar purposes. The word 'localization' in the tool name is not reflected in the description, missing an opportunity to disambiguate.

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 no context for when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or trade-offs mentioned. With several language-related sibling tools, this gap leaves the agent without guidance on selection.

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