list_files_sonarr

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

Annotations already disclose that this tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the GET endpoint and the concept of path-based browsing, but it does not provide additional behavioral detail such as null-path handling or traversal limits.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: purpose, endpoint, and parameter are each stated in one short line. There is no filler or redundant elaboration.

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, single-optional-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and strong annotations, this is nearly complete. The only meaningful gap is the absence of a statement about default path behavior, which would make it fully self-contained.

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 the description must compensate, but 'path: Path to browse' adds little beyond the parameter name. It does not clarify important semantics like what happens when path is null, what path formats are accepted, or whether omitting path lists a root directory.

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 'List Sonarr file system content', which identifies a specific action and resource. The explicit 'Sonarr' qualifier distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like list_files_radarr and list_files.

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 Sonarr-specific wording implies the intended usage context, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool versus list_files or list_files_radarr. The decision relies on the tool name and sibling grouping rather than description-provided direction.

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