sonarr_list_metadata_schema

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint: true, so the read-only nature is already disclosed. The description adds a small clarification that the schema contains 'available fields/options,' but does not provide deeper behavioral context such as output format or caching. It does not contradict annotations.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. No unnecessary words or information.

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 there are no input parameters, an output schema exists, and the read-only annotation is present, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It fully explains the tool's purpose without requiring additional 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?

With zero parameters, the schema is trivially complete and the baseline is 4. The description adds semantic value by clarifying that the returned schema represents available fields/options, which is more meaningful than just the empty input 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 tool returns the metadata providers schema, with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('metadata providers schema'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'sonarr_list_metadata' by explicitly focusing on schema/fields/options.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The purpose implies usage for discovering available fields/options before configuring metadata providers, but that context is not stated. The description only conveys what it does, not when to choose it over similar schema-listing tools.

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