sonarr_list_custom_formats

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 clearly states the tool lists custom formats, which implies a read-only operation with no side effects. However, it does not disclose potential authorization requirements, pagination, or error behavior. For a simple list operation, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 single, focused sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and resource, and every phrase ('with their IDs and specifications') adds useful detail. This is a model of conciseness.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, straightforward list action), the description provides the essential information: what it lists and what details are returned. It could optionally mention that the result is a list of all formats, but that is already clear. The description is complete enough for this low-complexity tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter information. According to the rubric, 0 parameters gets a baseline of 4. The description adds context about what the output includes (IDs and specifications), which indirectly helps the agent understand what to expect, though it doesn't need to explain 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 'List all custom formats defined in Sonarr with their IDs and specifications' uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('custom formats') and scope ('all'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like sonarr_get_custom_format by specifying 'all', and clarifies output content (IDs and specifications).

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need an overview of all custom formats), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools like sonarr_get_custom_format or trash_list_custom_formats exist, but no guidance is given on when to choose this over them. Thus, usage is implied but not explicitly detailed.

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