List TMDB TV Genres

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 states the core behavior (listing TV genre names and IDs) but omits the behavior of the 'language' parameter, such as whether it localizes genre names or is optional. It also doesn't disclose any response format details beyond 'names and IDs'. This leaves meaningful gaps for a simple but parameterized tool.

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 sentence of 10 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. It is extremely concise with no wasted words, and every word contributes to the meaning. This is an example of appropriately sized brevity.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description provides a baseline level of completeness by stating what the tool returns. However, it is incomplete because it does not describe the language parameter's behavior or differentiate from the sibling tool for movie genres. It is a minimum viable description with clear gaps.

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 mention the 'language' parameter at all. The parameter appears only in the schema with a pattern, but the description provides no explanation of its purpose or effect. Since the description adds zero value for parameter understanding, this scores low.

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 'Lists' and the specific resource 'TV genre names and IDs', and it distinguishes itself from siblings like tmdb_list_movie_genres by explicitly saying 'TV'. The phrase 'for discovery filters' adds useful context about its intended use.

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 a use case with 'for discovery filters', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like tmdb_list_movie_genres or mention any exclusions. There is no 'instead' or 'use when' guidance, so usage is only implied.

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