Get showtimes for a specific movie at cinemas in this neighborhood, for a given date. Returns each cinema with session times, format (e.g. "Laser", "3D"), and language (Dublado/Legendado). Requires movies_enabled on this site.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Date in YYYY-MM-DD format. Defaults to today (BRT). | |
| movie_slug | Yes | Movie slug from list_movies (e.g. "o-corvo-1016084"). |
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 discloses the output structure (cinema, session times, format, language) and a requirement, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, any auth needs, or rate limits.
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 extremely concise with only two sentences, each providing essential information without any extraneous words.
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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (cinema, session times, format, language) and includes a prerequisite. Minor gaps like date range limitations are missing, but overall sufficient for a simple 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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by specifying the date format (YYYY-MM-DD), default behavior (today BRT), and an example for movie_slug ('o-corvo-1016084'), which helps the agent understand parameter usage beyond the schema.
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 it gets showtimes for a specific movie at local cinemas on a given date, specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like list_movies by focusing on showtimes, but does not explicitly differentiate from other similar 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?
The description mentions a prerequisite ('Requires movies_enabled on this site') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_movies, nor does it state when not to use it.
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 has a clear, distinct purpose. Tools like create_booking and request_reservation target different services (appointments vs. restaurant tables), and reserve_event_tickets vs. rsvp_event differentiate paid holds from free RSVPs. No overlapping functionality that would confuse an agent.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_booking, list_events, search_dishes) using lowercase with underscores. No mixing of conventions or irregular verbs.
28 tools cover a broad domain of neighborhood directory services (bookings, events, movies, restaurant menus, forms, etc.). While the count is slightly high, each tool serves a specific function and is justified by the domain scope.
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for a neighborhood directory: search, booking, reservations, event management, menus, reviews, forms, loyalty, and more. No obvious gaps; all core user needs are addressed.
