radarr_get_system_routes

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates a safe read operation, and the description 'List routes' aligns with that. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as what routes are returned, whether there is pagination, or any prerequisites.

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 extremely brief, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It leaves out critical information about what 'routes' means and what the tool actually returns.

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?

Even though the tool has an output schema and no parameters, the description is too vague to understand the tool's purpose or when to invoke it. The term 'routes' is undefined, and no context is provided about its relationship to Radarr.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (vacuous), the description need not add parameter details. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and there are no gaps to compensate for.

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 routes' provides a specific verb and resource, but 'routes' is ambiguous and it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling radarr_get_system_routes_duplicate. It is more informative than a pure tautology but lacks scope clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what alternatives exist, or any context for when 'routes' would be needed. The description gives no usage direction.

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