radarr_list_downloadclient

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation, as 'list' is a read operation. However, it provides no additional behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as whether the result is paginated, sorted, or filtered. The description adds minimal value beyond what annotations already convey.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, though the phrasing 'downloadclient' is slightly awkward. It is appropriately sized given the tool's simplicity, but it borders on being too sparse.

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 that the tool has no parameters, annotations include readOnlyHint, and an output schema is present, the description is mostly complete. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema covers that. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating 'all' download clients, but the verb 'list' commonly implies that.

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 the schema coverage is 100% (trivially, since there are no parameters). The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description offers a clear resource context even though no parameters are present.

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 downloadclient' clearly specifies the action (list) and resource (downloadclient). It is distinct from sibling tools like radarr_get_downloadclient, but it does not explicitly state that it lists all download clients, only that it lists them. The verb 'list' is standard for retrieving a collection, making the purpose understandable.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as radarr_get_downloadclient or radarr_get_downloadclient_schema. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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