sonarr_list_filesystem

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as whether the listing is recursive, what happens when the path does not exist, or how directories vs files are represented. It merely repeats the parameter name 'path' without revealing behavior beyond the annotation.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and keeps the parameter tip brief. While it is short, it earns its sentences, though it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has three parameters with no descriptions, and the description does not explain their semantics or the tool's position among sibling filesystem tools. The server filesystem listing is ambiguous, and the meaning of key options like include_files is unexplained, leaving a significant gap in operational understanding.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only mentions 'path' (which is already in the schema) and completely ignores 'include_files' and 'allow_folders_without_trailing_slashes'. An agent cannot infer the meaning or effect of these undocumented parameters, making the description almost as uninformative as the raw 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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'server filesystem', which gives a basic sense of the operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sonarr_list_filesystem_mediafiles and sonarr_list_filesystem_type by being a general filesystem listing, though it lacks specificity about whether it lists drives, directories, or both.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sonarr_list_filesystem_mediafiles, sonarr_list_filesystem_type, or sonarr_list_rootfolder. There are no contextual hints, exclusions, or references to other tools, so an agent has no basis for selecting this over related functions.

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