radarr_list_localization

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not mention return format, ordering, filtering, or any side effects, which leaves the agent without additional context for this simple read-only operation.

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 entire description is a single concise sentence: 'List localization strings.' It communicates the purpose without any unnecessary words, making it perfectly sized for a simple tool.

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?

For a zero-parameter list operation with an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It clearly states the action, and the output schema covers return values. However, it could benefit from a hint about what 'localization strings' encompasses, though this is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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, so schema coverage is vacuously 100%. No parameter explanations are needed, and the baseline of 4 for 0-param tools is appropriate.

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 it lists localization strings with a specific verb and resource, which is unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool radarr_get_localization_language, relying on the list/get naming pattern for differentiation.

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 or why it might be preferred over alternatives like radarr_get_localization_language. The description simply states the function without any usage context or exclusions.

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