sonarr_list_command

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read operation. The description adds the queued/running scope but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, return format, or ordering. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description contributes minimal extra transparency beyond the read-only nature.

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, concise phrase that immediately communicates the action and resource. It contains no filler or redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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's simplicity (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know for correct invocation. The readOnlyHint annotation and sibling context complete the picture.

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, so there is nothing for the description to explain. Baseline of 4 applies because the description does not need to compensate for parameter ambiguity.

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 queued/running commands' uses a specific verb 'list' and identifies the resource 'commands' with a clear scope (queued/running). It distinguishes from sibling tools like sonarr_run_command, sonarr_get_command, and sonarr_delete_command, making its purpose 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 clearly implies use for viewing active command entries. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context of 'queued/running' and the sibling set provide adequate usage direction without confusion.

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