sonarr_get_system_routes_duplicate

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, and the description's 'List' action is consistent. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context such as what 'duplicate' means, whether routes include HTTP methods, or any pagination/error behavior. Since annotations cover the read-only aspect, the low bar is met.

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 zero filler. It states the action and target clearly, making it an exemplary concise description.

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 tool with no parameters, a read-only annotation, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. The only gap is that 'duplicate' is not defined (e.g., duplicate paths vs. methods), which could cause slight ambiguity. Otherwise, it sufficiently covers the tool's purpose.

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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to document. Per the baseline rule for 0-parameter schemas, a score of 4 is appropriate because the description need not explain any parameters, and it doesn't contradict the schema.

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 ('List') with a clear resource ('duplicate registered API routes') and a qualifier ('duplicate') that distinguishes it from the sibling tool sonarr_get_system_routes. This is concise 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is a specialized variant of sonarr_get_system_routes, nor does it advise on scenarios like debugging route conflicts. There is no 'when' or 'when-not' context.

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