radarr_list_credit

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already discloses that this is a read-only operation, so the description does not need to repeat safety. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as the fact that credits are cast/crew, but does not explain behaviors like what happens when both parameters are provided or omitted. Given annotations cover safety, a score 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 is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. Every word carries meaning, with no filler or redundancy. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is a simple list operation with an output schema (so return values are presumably defined by the schema) and a readOnlyHint annotation. The description covers the core purpose and identifies the relevant parameters. It lacks explicit parameter semantics, but the simplicity of the tool and the presence of output schema make this a minor gap, so the description is almost complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter clarity. It merely lists the parameter names ('movie_id, movie_metadata_id') without explaining their meaning, relationship, or whether either is required. Since the schema itself provides only integer types and defaults, the description adds little semantic value beyond what is already visible in the schema.

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 the action ('List') and the resource ('movie credits'), and adds the scope '(cast/crew)' to specify exactly what is returned. It distinguishes from the sibling 'radarr_get_credit' which presumably retrieves a single credit, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 clear context that this tool is for listing movie credits and indicates the query parameters to use. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use get_credit for a single credit'), but the verb 'list' implies use when wanting multiple credits, so guidance is adequate.

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