seerr_list_request

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already covers safety. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as pagination, filtering, or output structure. It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not enhance them.

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 one short sentence with no wasted words, but it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification. It lacks structure and substance for a tool with this many parameters.

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 7 parameters and presence of an output schema, the description is far too sparse. It provides no information on filter semantics, pagination, or how this endpoint differs from related list/count endpoints, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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%, and the description provides no explanation for any of the 7 parameters (skip, take, sort, filter, media_type, requested_by, sort_direction). The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 'Get all requests' provides a clear verb and resource with the scope 'all', but it does not distinguish from sibling tools like seerr_list_request_count or seerr_get_user_requests. It lacks detail on what constitutes a 'request' and is nearly a restatement of 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. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context such as admin vs. user-scoped requests.

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