komga_referential_metadata

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true is provided, and the description makes clear these are list operations, which aligns. The description adds value by listing the specific operations, which are all read-only queries, but it does not go beyond the annotation in disclosing behavioral traits like pagination defaults or potential performance considerations. No contradiction.

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 with a clear introductory sentence followed by a bullet-like list of operations. It is efficient in that each line is concise and informative. The list format is easy to scan, and the description is front-loaded with the core instruction. Slight redundancy in repeating common parameters is acceptable for clarity.

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 high complexity of this tool (ten operations with many parameters), the description provides reasonable coverage by listing each operation and its parameters. However, it lacks details on response structure (though an output schema exists), filtering behavior, or edge cases. The absence of usage guidelines and limited parameter semantics makes it less complete for a tool with such a broad scope.

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 schema has a low description coverage of 0% (the 'arguments' property is a generic object with additionalProperties true), so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. The description lists the parameters for each operation, which is helpful, but it provides minimal semantics beyond parameter names and a brief purpose. For example, it does not explain what 'search' filters against or how 'sort' works, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 that this tool performs list operations on distinct metadata values like age ratings, authors, genres, etc. It enumerates each operation with a one-line summary, making the purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools beyond listing metadata-specific operations, which is inferred from the operation names.

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 usage by saying to pass an `operation` and an `arguments` dict, and it lists each operation with its parameters. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling tools, but the metadata-specific nature is implied. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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