kodi_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint:false and openWorldHint:false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds material behavioral context beyond that: queries are restricted to an allowlist and arbitrary/execution-style methods are rejected, which tells the agent a rejection is possible for out-of-scope methods.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the positive capability and immediately followed by the constraint. No filler, no repetition of the name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But with 0% parameter coverage and no list or example of valid allowlisted methods, an agent cannot reliably select a valid 'method' argument — the definition is thin for a two-parameter dispatcher.

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 description coverage is 0%, so both 'method' and 'params' are undocumented structurally. The description only implies 'method' is a JSON-RPC method name and does not enumerate allowable methods or explain the params object shape, leaving the agent without the information needed to supply valid inputs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Run an allowlisted diagnostic JSON-RPC query,' with a stated scope (allowlisted, diagnostic). This distinguishes it from generic RPC execution, though it does not differentiate it from siblings like kodi_status, kodi_logs, or kodi_browse that also read diagnostics.

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 second sentence gives negative guidance — 'No arbitrary RPC, executebuiltin or playback calls' — which tells the agent the tool's boundaries, a partial form of when-not-to-use. However, there is no positive when-to-use context and no pointer to which sibling handles the excluded operations.

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