lidarr_get_root_folders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but lacks explicit statements about safety, side effects, or any prerequisites. The description is adequate but does not go beyond the basic nature of the tool.

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?

Two succinct sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately provide actionable usage advice. No unnecessary words; every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it explains what is retrieved and why. However, it does not describe the return format or any potential limitations, leaving a minor gap for an agent relying solely on this description.

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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). Per guidelines, a tool with no parameters receives a baseline score of 4. The description adds no parameter info, which is appropriate since none exist.

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 retrieves available root folders for Lidarr, directly identifying its purpose. It also explicitly links this to finding valid rootFolderPath values when adding an artist, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like radarr_get_root_folders or sonarr_get_root_folders.

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 explicitly guides usage: 'Use this to find valid rootFolderPath values when adding an artist.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool. While it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternative tools, the context is clear due to the tool's specific name and unique role among siblings.

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