list_rename

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description only repeats 'Read' and the GET verb, adding no behavioral context about return values, empty results, error behavior, or side effects. It does not contradict the annotations, but it provides no transparency beyond them.

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 and has a clear endpoint-and-args structure, so it is not bloated. However, it is under-specified to the point of being minimally informative, and the opening sentence adds little beyond the tool name.

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 two-parameter read endpoint with helpful annotations, a short description can suffice, but only if it states what is being listed and when to use it. This description does not, so an agent cannot know whether list_rename returns rename candidates, past renames, or something else. The output schema helps with response structure but not with intended use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain what series_id and season_number mean, whether they are optional, and how they interact. It merely labels them as 'Query parameter' and repeats their names, so it fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 says 'Read RenameEpisode' and provides the GET endpoint, but never explains what a RenameEpisode is or what the returned data represents. It essentially restates the tool name (list_rename) and does not differentiate it from the many sibling list_* tools, leaving the purpose vague.

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 call this tool, what problem it solves, or why an agent would choose it over sibling tools like list_episode or the config naming tools. The only usage-related information is the query parameter list, with no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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