radarr_list_config_naming_examples

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond 'List examples.' It doesn't disclose what the output represents, potential edge cases, or any limitations, providing little value beyond the annotation.

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?

While the description is short, it is under-specified rather than concise. The parameter list duplicates the schema, wasting space, and 'List examples' provides no useful detail. The structure lacks front-loaded information about purpose or usage.

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?

Despite having an output schema and 7 parameters, the description is severely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns, what the parameters mean, or when to use it, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description simply restates the parameter names without explaining their meaning or use. For example, 'colon_replacement_format' is listed but not defined, failing to help the agent understand how to set or interpret these parameters.

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 only says 'List examples,' which is vague and fails to state what kind of examples. The tool name implies naming configuration examples, but the description does not specify this, leaving the purpose ambiguous and not clearly distinguishing it from other list tools.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool or when to avoid it. It does not mention any alternatives, prerequisites, or context, offering no help in choosing this tool over siblings.

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