suche

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable temporal context with 'currently,' indicating rotating or time-sensitive content. However, it omits details about return format, pagination behavior, or caching that would aid invocation.

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 a single, efficient sentence of six words that leads with the action verb. There is zero waste or redundancy; every word earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description adequately covers the domain (Blu-ray movies) and operation type. While no output schema exists, the description implies a collection return through the plural 'movies.' It could be improved by hinting at the data structure, but it is sufficient for tool selection.

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%, with the 'limit' parameter fully documented as 'Maximum results (1-20, default 8).' The description does not mention the parameter, but given the high schema coverage, this meets the baseline expectation without adding redundant information.

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 uses specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'currently featured and recommended Blu-ray movies.' The terms 'featured' and 'recommended' effectively distinguish this from sibling tools 'search_movies' (query-based) and 'get_movie_details' (specific lookup).

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?

While the description implies discovery/browsing use cases through 'featured and recommended,' it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus the search or details alternatives. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds value by disclosing return content (cast, trailer, external links) which compensates partially for the missing output schema. However, it lacks operational details such as idempotency, error handling for invalid slugs, or rate limiting considerations.

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?

Single, efficiently structured sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Get detailed information...'). Every clause earns its place by either specifying the resource ('about a specific movie') or detailing the return payload ('including cast, trailer, and external links'). No redundancy or fluff.

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 low complexity (single string parameter, no nested objects) and absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the return value structure. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's scope, though it could benefit from mentioning error cases (e.g., slug not found).

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 100% schema description coverage ('Movie slug (e.g., 'matrix-1999')'), the baseline is 3. The description does not mention the 'slug' parameter or add semantic context about how to identify the movie, relying entirely on the schema. It neither adds to nor detracts from the schema documentation.

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?

Clear verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific movie'). The phrase 'specific movie' implicitly distinguishes this from sibling tools 'search_movies' and 'get_featured_movies' (which handle queries and lists respectively). Listing specific return fields (cast, trailer, external links) clarifies what 'detailed information' entails.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the 'search_movies' or 'get_featured_movies' siblings. While 'specific movie' implies usage when a movie identifier is known, there are no explicit when/when-not conditions or prerequisites mentioned (e.g., 'use this when you have a movie slug').

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It establishes the domain (Blu-ray database) and search capabilities but omits behavioral details like fuzzy vs. exact matching, pagination behavior, or what data structure is returned.

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?

Single sentence efficiently conveys the tool's function without redundancy or filler. Information is front-loaded with the action and resource clearly stated.

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?

Adequate for a simple two-parameter search tool with complete schema coverage, but lacks crucial context given the absence of an output schema—specifically, it omits that results likely contain movie IDs intended for use with the sibling get_movie_details tool.

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%, documenting both query and limit parameters fully. The description reinforces the query parameter's purpose but adds no additional semantic context (e.g., query syntax, examples) beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Provides specific verb (Search), resource (Blu-ray movie database), and search scope (title, director, actor, keywords). Implicitly distinguishes from get_featured_movies (browsing) and get_movie_details (retrieval by ID), though lacks explicit sibling comparison.

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?

Lists searchable fields but provides no guidance on when to use this versus get_featured_movies or get_movie_details, nor does it mention prerequisites like minimum query length or search syntax.

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