plex_reporting

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, which already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context by mentioning server diagnostic operations and outlining the return format (ToolResult with 'success', 'operation', and report fields). It does not discuss additional traits like rate limits or auth requirements, but for a read-only reporting tool with annotations, this is adequate.

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 well-structured with clear sections for purpose, rationale, return format, and examples. It is somewhat verbose with the portmanteau rationale, but the examples and return format are valuable. It front-loads the purpose and remains readable, though a tighter version could omit the rationale paragraph.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, 6 operation enums, no output schema), the description provides a reasonable level of completeness. It states the return format, gives multiple examples, and mentions the overall goal. It does not detail each operation individually, but the enum names are self-explanatory and the schema describes them. The readOnlyHint annotation covers safety, so the description is adequate for selection and invocation.

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 100%, so all 5 parameters are described in the input schema. The description does not add much beyond the schema, but it does provide usage examples that clarify how parameters like 'operation' and 'library_id' are used. Since the schema already does the heavy lifting, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as a 'Comprehensive reporting and analytics tool for Plex Media Server' and mentions it consolidates 6 reporting and server diagnostic operations. It specifies the resource (Plex Media Server) and the general function, but does not explicitly differentiate from specific sibling tools beyond the broad category of reporting/diagnostics.

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 description includes a 'PORTMANTEAU PATTERN RATIONALE' explaining that it consolidates reporting operations for a systematic overview, which implies usage for reporting/analytics. It also provides examples of how to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or when not to use it.

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