seerr_requests

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does mark write operations as 'WRITE: this modifies your Seerr instance' and delete as 'DESTRUCTIVE: this deletes data', which is valuable safety information. Yet it misses other behavioral details like authentication requirements, side effects of retry, or whether deletions are reversible. It covers the main hazards but not comprehensively.

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 a concise bullet list of operations, each on a single line with parameters and safety flags. It avoids heavy prose and is easy to scan. The format could benefit from grouping or headings, but it is appropriately sized for the number of operations and does not waste words.

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?

With 8 sub-operations and no annotations, the description provides a functional overview but leaves gaps. It does not explain return values (despite an output schema existing), accepted status values for 'set_request_status', or filter/sort options for list operations. Given the tool's complexity, a bit more detail on data types and constraints would improve completeness without bloating the description.

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 provides only generic 'operation' and 'arguments' fields with no descriptions (0% coverage), leaving the description to compensate. It does so by listing each operation with its expected arguments (e.g., 'seerr_create_request(body={})', 'seerr_list_request(take=None, skip=None, ...)'), which clarifies what parameters each operation accepts. However, it does not explain the meaning of ambiguous parameters like 'filter' or 'status' values, so it is helpful but not exhaustive.

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 tool for Seerr request operations, listing all supported sub-operations (create, delete, get, list, count, retry, set status, update). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on other domains like users or discover. However, it lacks a single concise verb+resource statement, relying on a list instead.

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 explains the dispatch pattern ('Pass operation and an arguments dict') and enumerates operations with their parameters, which tells the agent which sub-operation to use for what. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings or mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is implied but not spelled out.

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