radarr_list_metadata

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

The description does not add any behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not mention response format, pagination, ordering, or any other operational details. While the annotation indicates safety, the description itself provides no extra transparency.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no unnecessary verbiage.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists, read-only annotation), the description is sufficiently complete. It clearly states what the tool does without needing to explain return values or parameters.

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 the schema already fully covers parameters (100% coverage). The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics.

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 metadata providers' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating a listing operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like radarr_get_metadata (retrieve a single provider) and radarr_create_metadata (create a provider).

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 vs alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. For a simple list operation, context is implied but not explicit, so it lacks clear usage guidelines.

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