komga_referential_metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the auth mechanism (X-API-Key header or basic auth via KOMGA_USERNAME/KOMGA_PASSWORD) and the self-hosted-only deployment constraint, both of which affect whether a call can succeed at all.

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?

Front-loaded with scope, then auth, then the action inventory — a sensible order with no filler. The action enumeration partially duplicates the schema enum, but on a dispatcher tool it doubles as a routing summary, so it earns most of its space.

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 13-operation read-only dispatcher with no output schema, the description covers auth, deployment scope, the action inventory, and the self-documenting 'help + target' path to per-action parameters. It stops short of noting whether results are paginated or what shape the metadata lists take, which is a minor residual gap.

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 body, query, params, action, and target are all documented in the schema itself. The description only restates the help/target mechanism and adds no routing detail about which actions accept query vs. path parameters, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States the tool covers the 'referential_metadata' toolset and enumerates all 13 actions, which are self-descriptive (get_genres, get_publishers, get_sharing_labels). An agent can tell this is the lookup/enumeration namespace rather than the book/series/library tools, though the description never explicitly contrasts with the sibling tools.

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?

Usage is implied by the action list plus the 'Self-hosted Komga only' constraint and the 'action help with target' escape hatch, but there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over komga_series or komga_books, and no stated preconditions beyond auth.

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