letterboxd_member

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 discloses that the data is public, requires no credentials, and returns stats like films watched and follower counts. This is sufficient for a simple read operation, though it does not mention error handling 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 two concise sentences: the first states the purpose and return data, the second clarifies privacy and credential requirements. Every sentence adds value, is front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary 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 has a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (specific stats) and its public nature. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when to use this tool, though it lacks details on potential pagination or data limits.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage (the 'username' parameter is described as 'Letterboxd username'). The description adds some context by implying the username is for a member, but does not significantly enhance the parameter's meaning beyond what the schema already provides. According to guidelines, baseline is 3.

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: 'Get a Letterboxd member's public profile stats.' It specifies the resource (Letterboxd member), the verb (Get), and lists the data returned (films watched, lists, following/followers). This distinguishes it from siblings like letterboxd_film or letterboxd_person, which target different entities.

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 usage context by stating that data is public and credential-free, indicating when to use (for public profile stats). It does not explicitly exclude scenarios or name alternative tools, but the sibling context makes the distinction clear enough.

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