radarr_list_log_file

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as what is listed (file names, contents?) or any limitations. It is minimally informative but does not contradict the annotation.

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 only two words, which is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It is not appropriately sized because it fails to communicate essential information about the tool's purpose.

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?

Even though an output schema exists and the tool has no input parameters, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what 'file' refers to, how it relates to sibling tools, or what the agent can expect from using it. This is a clear gap in completeness.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4; the description does not need to explain parameters. No additional meaning is needed.

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 file.' is extremely vague. It does not specify that it lists log files specifically, and it does not distinguish it from siblings like 'radarr_list_log' or 'radarr_list_log_file_update'. It essentially restates the tool name without adding clarity, so it scores as a near-tautology.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of how it differs from other list tools or when it should be preferred.

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