komga_management

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

The annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context about authentication (API key or basic auth) and the self-hosted-only constraint, but it does not describe the return behavior or scope of get_actuator_info beyond the action name.

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 mostly front-loaded: it identifies the toolset, then auth, self-hosted constraint, help behavior, and available actions. Minor awkwardness like '(1 operations)' is present, but the structure is efficient and every sentence contributes context.

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 dispatcher with one real action, the description covers auth, self-hosted scope, help usage, and the action list. It still omits what get_actuator_info actually does or returns, and there is no output schema to compensate, so an agent must infer the operation's behavior from the name alone.

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 the schema already documents action, target, body, query, and params. The description reiterates the help/target behavior already documented in the target schema field and adds no further parameter semantics; with full schema coverage, a baseline 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 names the tool as a management toolset with one operation and lists the action 'get_actuator_info', which gives an agent a concrete operation to select. However, it never explains what 'management' or 'actuator info' means, so the purpose remains vague beyond the action name and does not clearly distinguish it from resource-oriented siblings like komga_series or komga_libraries.

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 states this is for self-hosted Komga only and explains authentication, which is useful context. It also mentions 'action help with target' for discovering parameters, but it does not say when to choose this tool over the sibling komga_* tools or when this tool is inappropriate.

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