get_library_metadata_by_ids_related

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. However, the description itself discloses no behavioral details beyond repeating the endpoint and parameter, such as what 'related' means, how results are ordered, or whether the output follows open-world semantics.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by the endpoint and parameter detail. Every line earns its place, with no filler or redundant explanation.

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 single-parameter, read-only GET with an output schema, the description provides the essential call mechanics. However, it lacks enough context to disambiguate from multiple closely related endpoints and does not clarify the semantic meaning of 'related items', leaving the agent to rely on the output schema and sibling names.

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 only defines ids as a string with no description, so the description's 'Comma-separated list of IDs' adds useful format information. It does not explain what kind of IDs these are (e.g., Plex metadata identifiers) or provide examples, leaving some ambiguity.

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 and resource: 'Get related items' combined with the endpoint 'GET /library/metadata/{ids}/related' clearly indicates fetching related library metadata for the given IDs. This distinguishes it from the base metadata lookup tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from closely related siblings like get_library_metadata_by_ids_similar or get_library_metadata_by_ids_extras.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when 'related' is preferable to 'similar', 'nearest', 'extras', or the hub-based related endpoint, leaving selection to inference from the name alone.

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