Get TMDB Credits

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only mentions 'bounded' but does not explain the limit parameter, default behavior, error cases, or response structure. This is a significant gap for a tool with no other behavioral context.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with a clear but limited scope.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is severely under-specified. It does not explain how to request season/episode credits, the effect of creditType, or the response format, making it difficult to use correctly without deeper inspection.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 7 parameters. It vaguely references media types but does not map them to mediaType, id, seasonNumber, episodeNumber, creditType, or limit. The 'bounded' hint is insufficient for parameter understanding.

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 identifies the action ('Gets') and the resource ('cast and crew credits') for movie, TV series, season, or episode. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tmdb_get_movie or tmdb_get_person_credits, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool over the many sibling tools. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name alone.

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