Browse Blu-ray movies filtered by release year (exact or range) and/or genre. At least one filter is required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | Exact release year (e.g. 1999) | |
| genre | No | Genre to filter by (e.g. 'Science Fiction', 'Action') | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of results (1-25, default 10) | |
| yearTo | No | End of release year range (inclusive) | |
| yearFrom | No | Start of release year range (inclusive) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full transparency burden, but it only mentions that at least one filter is required. It does not describe return format, pagination, filter combination semantics, or error behavior, leaving significant ambiguity.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states purpose and the required condition. No redundant or vague phrasing exists.
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?
While purpose and filter constraint are clear, the lack of output schema means return values are not described. The 'and/or' combination semantics is ambiguous, but the schema covers all parameters, making the description minimally adequate.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a critical constraint not in the schema: at least one filter must be provided. It also clarifies that year can be exact or a range, which maps to yearFrom/yearTo.
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 states the action (browse), resource (Blu-ray movies), and filtering criteria (release year and/or genre). It distinguishes from sibling tools like browse_by_tag (tag-based) and search_movies (likely keyword search).
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 implies usage for browsing by year or genre but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like search_movies or browse_by_tag. It lacks when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct browsing aspect: tags, year/genre, featured, details, similar, tags list, and search. The overlap between browse_by_tag and browse_movies is mitigated by clear descriptions of their filters.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lowercase with underscores (browse_, get_, list_, search_), making them predictable and easy to understand.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a movie browsing server, covering search, browse, details, and discovery without unnecessary bloat or missing core functionality.
The tool set covers search, browsing, details, and similar movies, but lacks an explicit genre listing tool, which is a minor gap since browse_movies requires genre input.
