radarr_list_filesystem_mediafiles

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation covers the read-only safety, but the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not state whether the listing is recursive, what media files are included, or any constraints. With no added context beyond the annotation, transparency is low.

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 very short (9 words) and front-loaded, but it is under-specified. 'Query params: path' is redundant with the schema and does not offer structured guidance. While there is no waste, the brevity comes at the cost of meaningful content, so it is not well-rounded.

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 presence of an output schema, return values need not be explained. However, the description lacks contextual information about what mediafiles are, how the path parameter is used, and when to invoke this tool among its many siblings. The description is too sparse to be considered complete even for a simple tool.

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%. The description only mentions 'Query params: path' without explaining what path means, its format, whether it is required, or any examples. The schema provides the parameter name and type but no semantic meaning. The description fails to add value for this parameter.

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 states 'List mediafiles' – a clear verb and resource. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like radarr_list_filesystem, though it does not explicitly mention filesystem context. The resource 'mediafiles' is unambiguous, but the description is terse and adds little beyond the tool name.

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. Sibling tools such as radarr_list_filesystem and radarr_list_filesystem_type exist, but the description gives no context, exclusions, or mention of these alternatives. The agent is left without any decision support.

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