Get my anime list

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and open-world. The description adds value by mentioning that each entry includes status, score, and progress, which offers insight beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior or sorting impact, and no contradictions exist.

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, efficient sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any redundant words. It is front-loaded and covers the key aspects.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately informs the agent that returned data includes status, score, and progress. However, it could mention that results are filterable by status and sortable, which is captured in the schema. Overall, it is fairly complete for a simple list retrieval tool.

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% for all 4 parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies. The mention of 'status, score and progress' describes the output, not parameters.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('authenticated user's own anime list'), and the included fields ('status, score and progress'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'get_my_manga_list' and 'search_anime' by specifying ownership and content.

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 the tool is for the current user's list but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'search_anime' or 'get_my_manga_list'. No exclusions or context for selection are provided.

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