list_files_radarr

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 'Path to browse' context and the API route, but does not describe behavior like default path handling, error cases, or return format (output schema covers return). No contradictions.

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 compact with a title line, endpoint, and args section. It is front-loaded and easy to scan. The endpoint line is slightly redundant with the title but not harmful.

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?

For a simple read-only list operation with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the core purpose and parameter. However, it lacks any cross-tool context or usage guidance, which could leave an agent uncertain about when to prefer this over sibling list tools.

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 no description for 'path' (0% coverage). The description adds 'Path to browse', which gives basic meaning but does not specify path format, required vs optional behavior, or how null is handled.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Radarr file system content'), and names the endpoint. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_files_sonarr' by naming Radarr, but does not clarify scope (files vs directories) or contrast with the generic 'list_files' tool.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus 'list_files' or 'list_files_sonarr'. The phrase 'Path to browse' implies a browsing use case, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools.

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