radarr_list_update

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation, and the description simply restates 'list' without adding any new behavioral context. It does not mention return format, pagination, or other nuances. With annotations covering safety, the description adds no value beyond what structured data already provides.

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, clear sentence that directly states the operation. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, wasting no words. This is an exemplar of conciseness for a simple list operation.

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 has no parameters, a read-only annotation, and an output schema that defines the return structure, the description is largely complete for a simple list operation. It could mention the type of updates (e.g., Radarr software versions) to be fully self-contained, but the tool name and context make it sufficiently clear.

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 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description has no need to explain parameter semantics, and the input schema confirms no parameters exist. This is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 available updates' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating a read-only listing operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like radarr_list_log_file_update, but could be slightly more specific about what kind of updates (e.g., software updates) are being listed.

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 implies usage when the agent needs to see available updates, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any context on prerequisites. Since there is no competing tool for listing updates, the implied usage is acceptable but not clearly delineated.

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