sonarr_list_customformat

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates a safe read operation, and the description 'List custom formats' aligns with this. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond what the name and annotation provide, such as return format or any special behavior. It is not misleading, but minimal.

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 that perfectly conveys the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary detail, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple, parameterless, read-only listing tool, the description is completely adequate. The output schema is available to explain return values, and the read-only annotation covers safety. There are no missing preconditions, filters, or side effects to disclose, so the description is complete in context.

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 the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to explain. According to the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter details.

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 custom formats' uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly names the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'sonarr_list_customformat_schema' and 'sonarr_get_customformat' by indicating it retrieves the collection of formats, not schemas or individual items.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'sonarr_list_customformat_schema' or 'sonarr_get_customformat'. The usage is implied by the name and description, but there are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, so the score is moderate.

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