sonarr_get_root_folders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('Get') which implies read-only, but does not explicitly disclose that it has no side effects, or mention authentication requirements or return format nuances. For a read tool, the 'Get' verb is sufficient but minimal, earning a mid-range score.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, followed by a practical use case. Every sentence earns its place, with no unnecessary detail or repetition.

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's low complexity (no params, no output schema), the description sufficiently explains the key return content ('root folders and free space') and the purpose (finding rootFolderPath values). It does not detail the exact return structure, but the use case makes it clear enough for the agent to invoke and interpret the result.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% since there is nothing to document. The description adds no parameter information because none exist. Per the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4.

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 'Get root folders and free space from Sonarr (TV)' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning the use case 'find valid rootFolderPath values when adding media.' This differentiates it from other storage-related tools like sonarr_get_disk_space.

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 provides explicit context for when to use the tool: 'Use this to find valid rootFolderPath values when adding media.' It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is clear enough to avoid misuse. No sibling is named as an alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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