komga_readlists

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

With destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false already declared, the description still adds real value: auth mechanism (X-API-Key or basic auth env vars), the confirm/dry-run contract, that writes require KOMGA_ALLOW_WRITES=true, that secrets are redacted in output, and that destructive/credential actions get an extra preview warning. This is well beyond what annotations convey.

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 auth and write-safety rules are front-loaded, which is good, but the middle sentences are dense and the destructive-action enumeration lists operations (scan, analyze, trash empty, settings, session, claim) that are not in this tool's action enum, which reads as boilerplate and can mislead. The action list is tacked on at the end.

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 destructive 6-parameter dispatcher with nested body/query/params objects and no output schema, the description covers auth, the write gate, dry-run behavior, and discovery via help — enough for an agent to call it safely. What remains thin is per-action semantics, but the help action is offered as the escape hatch for that.

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% and the confirm and target fields are documented in the schema itself, so the description's restatement of confirm semantics adds little. It does clarify the help+target pairing and note that body secrets are redacted, but the mapping of query/params fields to specific actions is not explained beyond pointing at the help action.

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 identifies the resource ('readlists toolset') and enumerates the actions (delete, get, get_id, patch, post), so an agent knows it dispatches Komga readlist operations. However, the opening sentence largely restates the tool name and never says what a readlist actually is or how these operations differ meaningfully from komga_collections or komga_books.

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 gives concrete procedural guidance: use action help with target to discover an action's parameters, writes require confirm:true plus KOMGA_ALLOW_WRITES, and omitting confirm yields a dry-run. What it does not do is say when to choose this tool over its siblings; the routing decision to komga_readlists vs komga_collections is left entirely to the reader.

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