get_media_overview

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

Annotations already declare the tool as readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the specific data domains covered, but doesn't mention any additional behavioral aspects like data freshness, caching, latency, or potential side effects. This adds some value beyond annotations but is not rich behavioral context.

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 sentence that front-loads 'Media overview' followed by a concise list of included services. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope, with no redundancy or filler. It's well-sized for the complexity.

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 an empty input schema and an output schema present, the description sufficiently scopes what the tool covers. It clearly enumerates all media services included, making it easy for an agent to decide when to select it. It could mention aggregation across services, but that's a minor gap.

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 schema coverage is 100% by definition. The baseline for zero-param tools is 4; the description doesn't need to explain any parameters and doesn't attempt to. No parameter information is missing.

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 the tool's purpose: providing an overview of media-related services. It lists specific sub-services (Plex, Sonarr/Radarr, Transmission, Overseerr, Prowlarr), which distinguishes it from sibling overview tools like get_homelab_overview and get_infra_overview. The verb 'overview' and resource 'media' are specific and 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?

The description implies the tool is for getting a snapshot of media service status, and the list of included items makes its scope clear. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to decide between this and other overview tools. No exclusions are provided.

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