list_service_sonarr

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

The description adds the 'non-sensitive' qualifier, which tells the agent that the response omits sensitive fields, and it states the exact GET endpoint. Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds useful scoping beyond those safe traits.

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 two short lines with the core purpose front-loaded and the endpoint supplied separately. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given zero parameters, a present output schema, and annotations that fully cover the operation's safety profile, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

This tool has zero parameters and the schema reflects that, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('non-sensitive Sonarr server list'), and the endpoint reinforces the scope. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_service_sonarr_by_sonarr_id or list_settings_sonarr without ambiguity.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you need the non-sensitive list of Sonarr servers. However, it does not explicitly compare itself to alternatives such as list_service_radarr or get_service_sonarr_by_sonarr_id, leaving some routing to inference.

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