movies

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 default behavior ('Defaults to today's US schedule'), which is useful context. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 that front-loads the core purpose and includes essential default information. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary details, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's low complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and defaults but lacks output details (e.g., schedule format) and behavioral context (e.g., pagination, errors), which would be needed for full completeness without annotations.

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 the schema fully documents the parameters (date format, country code, defaults). The description adds marginal value by reinforcing the defaults but does not provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema already specifies, aligning with the baseline for high coverage.

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 specific action ('Get the TV broadcast schedule') and resource ('for a given country and date'), with explicit scope details ('Defaults to today's US schedule'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_tv_show' (individual shows) and 'search_tv_shows' (searching rather than schedule retrieval).

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (to retrieve broadcast schedules by country/date) and implies when not to use it (e.g., for individual show details or searching). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, such as when to use 'search_tv_shows' instead for non-schedule queries.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It states it returns 'full details' and 'complete episode list', which helps, but doesn't mention response format, pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error behavior. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 that front-loads the core purpose ('Get full details for a TV show') and adds necessary scope ('by its TVmaze ID, including its complete episode list'). Every word earns its place with zero waste.

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 one parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and scope. However, as a read operation with no annotations, it should ideally mention response structure or limitations to be fully complete. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps in behavioral context.

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 the schema already documents the single parameter 'id' with type and example. The description adds context that it's for 'TVmaze ID' and implies it retrieves details based on that, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema 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 clearly states the specific action ('Get full details'), resource ('a TV show'), and scope ('by its TVmaze ID, including its complete episode list'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_tv_schedule (schedule-based) and search_tv_shows (search-based) by specifying ID-based lookup with full details including episodes.

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 when you have a TVmaze ID and need full details with episodes, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like search_tv_shows (when you don't have an ID) or get_tv_schedule (for schedule info). No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the return fields but doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or pagination. For a search tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence and listing return fields efficiently. It avoids redundancy, but the list of return fields could be slightly streamlined (e.g., grouped). Overall, it's well-structured with no wasted 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 the tool's moderate complexity (search function with 2 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and return fields but misses behavioral details and usage guidelines. It's adequate for basic understanding but has clear gaps for effective agent use.

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 description adds minimal value beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage. It mentions searching 'by title or keyword,' aligning with the 'query' parameter description, but doesn't provide additional context like search algorithms or result ordering. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Search for movies by title or keyword.' It specifies the verb ('Search') and resource ('movies'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on TV content. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'search_tv_shows' beyond the resource type, missing a direct sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose it over 'search_tv_shows' or other siblings, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the resource type but not explicitly 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 full burden. It mentions the return fields (show name, genres, dates, rating, summary, image), which is helpful, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds return value details. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's moderate complexity (search function with 1 parameter) and no annotations or output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers purpose and return fields but lacks behavioral context (e.g., result limits, sorting) and doesn't fully compensate for the absence of structured data. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 single parameter 'query' documented as 'TV show name or keyword to search for'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or search behavior details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for TV shows by name' (verb+resource). It distinguishes from sibling 'search_movies' by specifying TV shows, but doesn't differentiate from 'get_tv_show' which might retrieve specific shows. The description is specific but could better clarify sibling distinctions.

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 context (searching by name/keyword) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_tv_show' (which might retrieve specific shows) or 'search_movies'. No guidance on when-not-to-use or prerequisites is provided, leaving usage somewhat ambiguous.

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