letterboxd_popular

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 that the tool uses 'Credential-free public Letterboxd data,' which is a useful behavioral trait. It also states it returns a chart. However, it does not mention rate limits, pagination behavior, or what constitutes a 'chart' beyond a list of films. The disclosure is minimal but not misleading, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds optional scoping and the credential-free note. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place. This is excellent conciseness.

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 tool with four optional parameters fully described in the schema and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the data source (credential-free public data), the return type (a chart), and available filters. The only minor gap is not describing the exact structure of the returned chart, but that's not crucial given the tool's simplicity. A 4 is justified.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description adds a brief summary of the optional scoping (time window, genre, decade) that maps to period, genre, and decade parameters, but it doesn't provide deeper semantics beyond the schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline of 3 is maintained.

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 popularity-ranked film chart.' It specifies the resource (Letterboxd film charts) and the action (get). The additional detail about optional scoping to period, genre, and decade further clarifies the scope. This distinguishes it well from siblings like letterboxd_search or letterboxd_film, which serve different purposes.

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 this tool (when you need a popularity-ranked film chart) and what filters are available, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. There is no guidance like 'Use this for popular charts, use search for film discovery.' The context is clear enough, but the lack of explicit routing to sibling tools prevents a higher score.

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