radarr_list_filesystem

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already discloses the non-destructive nature, and the description's 'List' aligns with this. The description adds little beyond stating the query parameter, and does not disclose behaviors like recursion, depth, or whether both files and folders are returned. It is not contradictory, but also not enriching.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words, effectively front-loading the core action. It is appropriately compact for a simple tool, though it sacrifices informative detail for brevity.

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 has three optional parameters, an output schema, and sibling filesystem tools, but the description only addresses 'path'. The lack of any explanation for the boolean parameters and the absence of differentiation from related filesystem tools makes the description incomplete for confident selection and invocation.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description is responsible for clarifying all parameters. It names 'path' as a query parameter but completely ignores 'include_files' and 'allow_folders_without_trailing_slashes', leaving their semantics unclear.

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 phrase 'List server filesystem' provides a clear verb+resource pairing, indicating a filesystem listing operation. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'radarr_list_filesystem_mediafiles' or 'radarr_list_filesystem_type', so it's a 4 rather than a 5.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the other filesystem tools. It simply states the action and mentions the path parameter, but provides no context, exclusions, or alternative suggestions.

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