komga_readlists

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly flags ADMIN requirements for create_readlist, delete_readlist, and update_readlist, which is valuable beyond the schema. However, it does not describe side-effect behavior in detail or confirm read/list operations as safe.

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 well structured as an intro line plus compact operation bullets. It front-loads the key dispatch rule and each operation earns its place with a short actionable summary.

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?

All eight operations and their ADMIN requirements are covered, which is helpful for a generic dispatcher schema. Yet the argument semantics are not fully complete: create_readlist and update_readlist rely on underspecified objects, and filter parameter values are not defined well enough for reliable invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is the main source of parameter meaning. It provides full signature lines including defaults, pagination, and filter parameters for get_readlist_books and list_readlists. It stops short of defining the structure of the readlist object and patch argument, which would materially improve confidence in creating or updating readlists.

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 identifies this as the readlists area of Komga and enumerates eight distinct operations with one-line purposes. It distinguishes the tool at the resource level from sibling Komga tools, though the opening phrase is somewhat generic and leans on the operation list for specificity.

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 operation list makes it clear what the tool can do, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of a sibling such as komga_collections or komga_books. Usage context is implied rather than directly prescribed.

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