seerr_list_service_radarr

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying 'non-sensitive', indicating that the response excludes sensitive data (e.g., API keys). This is useful beyond the annotation, though it does not detail the exact output structure (which is covered by the output schema).

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, well-structured sentence that is completely front-loaded with the key information: what it gets, what it applies to, and the sensitivity level. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 parameterless, read-only list tool with an output schema present, the description is largely complete. It clearly states the tool's function and the non-sensitive nature of the result. However, it does not preempt potential confusion with the closely related seerr_list_settings_radarr tool, which would make it fully complete from an agent's perspective.

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 takes zero parameters, and the schema is an empty object. No parameter explanation is needed. The description could not add more value here; the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter 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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('Radarr server list'), and a valuable qualifier ('non-sensitive') that distinguishes it from related tools like seerr_list_settings_radarr or seerr_get_service_radarr. The purpose is immediately obvious and unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage by its name and mention of 'non-sensitive', but there is no direct comparison or exclusion of siblings like seerr_list_settings_radarr. This leaves the agent to infer the best choice from context.

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