list_subtitles

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no side-effect, permission, or prerequisite behavior beyond the tool's purpose, though it does not contradict the annotations.

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 short, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains a compact Args section. The Args list adds little beyond the schema, but the overall structure is not bloated.

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 three optional nullable parameters and no guidance on selection or relationships, the description is insufficient for reliable invocation. The output schema covers return values, but the input contract is underspecified.

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 needed to carry parameter meaning. The Args section mostly restates the parameter names/titles ('Sonarr Episode ID', 'Radarr Movie ID') and adds only minimal clarification ('External subtitles file path'). It does not explain how the three optional parameters relate or when to supply which one.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the resource ('audio and embedded subtitles tracks with external subtitles'), and adds a use case ('manual subsync'). It is clear, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_subtitles_contents or list_subtitles_info.

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?

It provides a clear usage context: 'Used for manual subsync.' However, it does not explain when not to use this tool or point to alternatives, so it stops 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.