sonarr_list_languageprofile

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation, as 'List' is a read operation. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as return format, ordering, or pagination. Since the annotation already covers safety, this is acceptable but the description itself contributes no additional transparency.

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, focused sentence that directly states the tool's function. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation with no parameters, containing no extraneous information and front-loading the key details.

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, a zero-parameter schema, the readOnly annotation, and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what an agent needs to know. The agent can safely invoke this tool to retrieve language profiles without ambiguity, and the output schema fills in any return-value details.

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 is empty with no parameters, and the description correctly avoids documenting non-existent parameters. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and no additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 action (List) and resource (language profiles), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools such as sonarr_list_language or sonarr_get_languageprofile, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation. The name itself also carries the same information.

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 implies the tool is used to retrieve a list of language profiles, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites or typical use cases. Since the tool has no parameters and is a straightforward list operation, the usage is reasonably clear by implication but not explicitly spelled out.

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