komga_server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by noting ADMIN requirements for most operations, flagging clear_server_tasks as canceling queued tasks and returning the number removed, and marking update_server_settings as an update. It does not cover error behavior or return shapes for every operation, but the core side effects and permissions are disclosed.

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: a one-sentence dispatcher explanation followed by compact bullet entries. No word is wasted, and the format makes it easy for an agent to scan operations, parameters, and permission requirements.

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 tool aggregates seven distinct server operations with generic schema coverage, the description covers each operation, its parameters, and admin requirements. It does not explain output schemas, but an output schema exists, reducing that burden. Minor gaps like the exact structure of 'patch' prevent a perfect score.

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 only exposes a generic operation enum and an opaque 'arguments' object, so the description's per-operation signatures add substantial meaning. It lists parameters with defaults (page=0, size=50, unpaged=False, show_files=False) and gives enough context for most arguments; the main gap is that 'patch' is not structurally defined, but the operation name and general 'patch' convention help.

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 defines the tool as a dispatcher for Komga server operations and enumerates seven specific operations with precise verbs (clear, get, list, update). Each bullet names a distinct server-level action, which differentiates this tool from sibling tools focused on libraries, series, books, collections, etc.

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 opening instruction 'Pass operation and an arguments dict matching that operation's parameters' gives concrete invocation guidance. The server-scoped title and operation list make the intended domain clear versus sibling tools, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name specific alternatives.

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