letterboxd_person

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the data is credential-free and public, which is useful access context. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how errors or missing slugs are handled, or any pagination/response characteristics beyond the schema's limit parameter.

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 short and front-loaded with the primary action. The second sentence adds useful detail about credit-role scoping, and the credential-free note is relevant. There is minor redundancy between 'Get a Letterboxd person's filmography' and 'Returns a person's Letterboxd filmography,' but overall every sentence earns its place.

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 low-complexity read tool with three optional/required parameters, the description covers the core invocation details: what is returned, how role scopes it, and that no credentials are needed. The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by the clear 'filmography' return concept. It could be more complete by mentioning how to obtain a slug or describing the output fields, but it is enough for a straightforward call.

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 slug, role, and limit. The description's phrase 'for a credit role' aligns with the role enum but adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides. It does not introduce any additional param-specific context that an agent would need.

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 opens with the specific action and resource: 'Get a Letterboxd person's filmography.' It further clarifies that the result is scoped by a credit role, which is meaningful and distinct from generic person lookup. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby letterboxd tools like letterboxd_search or letterboxd_member, so it misses the full bar for 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 implies when to use the tool: when you need a person's filmography for a specific credit role. 'Credential-free public Letterboxd data' also signals that no authentication is required. But it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer letterboxd_search to resolve a slug or when to use letterboxd_member for non-filmography person data.

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