seerr_issues

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

Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden and explicitly labels write operations with 'WRITE: this modifies your Seerr instance' and destructive operations with 'DESTRUCTIVE: this deletes data'. This is valuable safety information, though it does not cover other behavioral aspects like rate limits or error conditions.

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 bullet list is compact and each line includes the operation signature and a safety flag, earning its place. The opening sentence is slightly awkward, but overall the structure is clear and efficient for a dispatcher tool with ten operations.

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 tool with ten operations and a generic schema, the description enumerates all operations and their parameters, and the output schema covers return values. However, it omits detailed parameter semantics and fails to explain the `arguments` dict pattern, leaving gaps that prevent fully 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?

The description lists parameter names and defaults (e.g., `body={}`, `take=None`, `filter='open'`) but fails to explain types, allowed values, or meaning of key parameters like `body`, `status`, and `filter`. With schema description coverage at 0%, the agent lacks sufficient detail to correctly construct the `arguments` dict.

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 it handles 'seerr issues operations' and then enumerates all ten sub-operations (create, delete, get, list, update) for issues and comments. While the opening phrase is awkward and doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, the enumeration makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings like seerr_requests or seerr_media_records. The only instruction is to 'Pass operation and an arguments dict', but no when/when-not context or alternative references are provided.

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