Renoir

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context not in the annotations: a hard cap of 200 per page, a 'crew before cast' ordering rule, and the fact that total/more/offset drive paging. It does not explain error behavior for an unknown id, keeping it below 5.

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?

Three sentences with no filler, and the core behavior (bidirectional connections on an entity) is front-loaded before return shape and pagination details. Phrasing like 'reads as a sentence' is slightly oblique but still conveys that each result is a human-readable string.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so reasonably: both ends named by id, the other end's title and year, page size, ordering, and pagination fields. It leaves gaps only around filtering behavior when 'type' is supplied and what happens for an invalid id, which are minor for a read-only traversal 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%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the enum of connection types. The description supplements this only lightly — 'total, more and offset page through the rest' clarifies offset's role and 'credits, scores and influences' loosely maps to the enum — which is the baseline 3 for a schema that does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific resource and scope: 'Every connection touching an entity, in both directions: credits, scores and influences.' An agent can immediately tell this traverses relationships rather than fetching the entity itself, which separates it from renoir_get_entity and renoir_get_film. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 phrase 'touching an entity' — you need an entity id to call it — but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over renoir_get_entity or renoir_search, nor any exclusion conditions. An agent must infer the routing decision from the resource names.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is fully covered without the description. The description earns credit beyond that by disclosing the shape of the returned record — roles and birth/death years for people, kind and scored film for music — which matters because there is no output schema. The word "compact" also usefully signals an abbreviated view rather than a full record.

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?

One tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and the entity enumeration folded into the same clause. Nothing is redundant and nothing could be cut without losing the return-shape information.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description supplies the piece annotations cannot: what the returned record contains for each entity kind. It is nearly complete, though it omits the not-found behavior an agent would want before relying on the result.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including a pattern and concrete examples ("person-tarkovsky", "film-stalker"), so the schema carries the semantics. The description only restates "by id" and adds the categories of id without extra format rules or edge-case behavior, which is the baseline for a fully documented parameter.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("compact record of any entity by id") and enumerates the entity kinds it covers — film, person, music work — so an agent knows exactly what lookup this performs. It stops short of naming a sibling like renoir_get_film to explain why it would choose this general lookup over the film-specific one, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 only implied: the phrase "by id" signals this is a direct key lookup, which suggests renoir_search is the path when you only have a name. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer renoir_get_film or renoir_get_connections, and no note about what happens when the id is unknown.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by listing the payload fields, which substitutes for the missing output schema. It stops short of saying what happens when the id is unknown or how the record relates to linked entities.

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?

One short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is a fragment rather than a complete sentence, but every word carries information and nothing is redundant.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotations, the definition covers what is needed: the lookup key and the returned fields. Absent an output schema, the field list does the work a return-value description would; only not-found behavior remains unstated.

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 single id parameter is fully documented including pattern and example in the schema. The description adds only the phrase 'by id', which conveys nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description names the resource precisely ('A film's record by id') and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling renoir_get_entity, which may also be a by-id lookup, leaving a small ambiguity.

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 only implied: fetch a single film when you have its id. There is no statement of when to prefer this over renoir_search or renoir_get_entity, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds substantive scope information — it tells the agent this call yields dataset size, connection taxonomy and provenance — but says nothing about response shape, pagination or cost of the call. Useful context beyond annotations, but not rich.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the important content (what the overview contains) leads. The opening clause 'What Renoir is' is slightly soft compared with the concrete list that follows, but nothing is wasted.

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 zero-parameter, non-destructive orientation tool with no output schema, the description gives an agent enough to decide whether to call it and roughly what it will learn. Absent are any hints about the response structure or what to do with the counts, but those are minor at this complexity.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. Nothing in the description misrepresents the parameter surface.

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 specific resource (Renoir) and enumerates its contents: counts of films, people and scores, the kinds of connection between them, and data provenance. An agent can infer this is the graph-level orientation tool rather than an entity lookup, though no sibling tool is named to make the contrast explicit.

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 only implied — an agent must reason that an overview is the natural first call before renoir_search, renoir_get_entity or renoir_get_film. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no mention of prerequisites or follow-up tools.

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?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, closed-world), and the description still adds substantial behavior: a hard cap of 25 matches, ranking with exact titles first, the per-result fields, and the meaning of known_as. It even predicts a silent-empty-result failure mode by warning that sub-three-character queries require an exact title match.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information, with the resource scope and match rule front-loaded before the result-shape notes. No filler, no restatement of the tool name or the enum values already in the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain returns, and it does: match count limit, ordering, per-item fields, and the known_as note. Combined with a fully documented two-parameter schema and complete annotations, nothing needed to call or interpret this tool is missing.

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 the schema already explains kind's enum and query's bounds; the baseline would be 3. The description earns an extra point by defining matching semantics the schema does not: case-insensitivity, which fields are searched (title, original title, other title), and the special behavior for very short queries.

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 a specific action (match by substring) over specific resources (films, people, scores) and constrains it to title fields, which cleanly separates it from the renoir_get_* siblings that fetch by id. An agent can tell this is the discovery/ID-lookup entry point without opening any schema.

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 only implied: the agent must infer that this is the way to find an entity before calling renoir_get_entity or renoir_get_film, since no sibling is named and no when-not condition is given. The short-query caveat (under three characters matches a whole title exactly) is genuinely useful guidance, which lifts it above a pure 2.

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