seerr_list_service_sonarr

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this a safe read operation, and the 'Get/list' description aligns with it. The description adds the 'non-sensitive' filter context beyond the annotation, but it does not disclose empty-list behavior, whether credentials are stripped, or the result shape. It adds some value but not rich behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words: 'Get non-sensitive Sonarr server list.' Every word earns its place, making it maximally concise and well-structured, albeit slightly under-specified in content.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema, the description is mostly adequate and the output schema covers return values. However, the undefined 'non-sensitive' qualifier and the absence of any mention of exclusions or empty-list behavior leave a notable gap for a simple tool.

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 and schema coverage is trivially 100%, so there are no parameter meanings for the description to explain. Per the rubric, zero-param tools get a baseline of 4, and the description doesn't need to compensate for any undocumented inputs.

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') and resource ('Sonarr server list') and adds a distinguishing qualifier ('non-sensitive'). However, it doesn't clarify whether 'server list' corresponds to the 'service' concept in the tool name, nor does it define what 'non-sensitive' excludes, leaving some ambiguity versus sibling tools like seerr_list_settings_sonarr.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as seerr_get_service_sonarr (single service) and seerr_list_settings_sonarr (settings) exist, but the description mentions no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools, so the agent gets no usage direction beyond the tool name.

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