letterboxd_popular

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly states 'credential-free public Letterboxd data,' which discloses authentication requirements. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or error handling, but the disclosure of public access is a key behavioral trait.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. No unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's function and optional scoping.

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 returns a chart (likely a list), the description does not explain the return format or any additional context like sorting or limits beyond the input parameters. It is adequate but could be more complete for an agent.

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%, so schema already documents parameters. The description adds the concept of 'scoping' but does not add significant meaning beyond what is in the schema parameter descriptions.

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 verb (Get), resource (popularity-ranked film chart), and optional scoping. It distinguishes this from other Letterboxd tools like letterboxd_film or letterboxd_search by focusing on a popularity chart.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives. The description implies it's for popularity rankings, but does not mention alternatives like letterboxd_search for text search or letterboxd_film for individual film details.

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