sonarr_list_localization

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It essentially restates the tool name without disclosing what the response contains, whether there are any prerequisites, or any limitations. The output schema may cover structure, but the description itself provides 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 extremely concise at just three words, with no wasted words or redundant details. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters, 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it could clarify whether 'localization strings' refers to all translation keys or just available languages, which would remove ambiguity. The presence of an output schema mitigates the lack of return-value details, but a bit more context would improve completeness.

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 to explain. According to the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description doesn't introduce any misleading parameter information, and the schema coverage is complete by default.

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 states 'List localization strings,' which clearly identifies a read operation with a specific resource. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from similar tools like sonarr_get_localization or sonarr_get_localization_language, and the exact scope (all strings vs. a list of languages) is ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the existence of sibling tools like get_localization, the description should clarify its specific role or mention alternatives, but it only states the basic action without any contextual usage hints.

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