check_movie_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It conveys a read-only check and names the output (monitoring status and artwork), but it does not describe behavior when the movie is absent, error conditions, or explicitly confirm no side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and output with no filler or redundancy. Every phrase earns its place.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify the return contract more fully. It says monitoring status and artwork are returned, but not what the output looks like when the movie is not found or how 'monitoring status' is represented. This is adequate but has 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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter is already documented as 'The exact title of the movie to search for.' The description adds context about the Radarr library but does not meaningfully enrich the title parameter beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific action ('Checks if a specific movie exists'), a concrete resource ('Radarr library on the Ubuntu cluster'), and a distinct outcome ('returns its monitoring status with artwork'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like search_and_select_movies or diagnose_missing_media.

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 intended use is implied: call it when you need to verify a movie's presence and monitoring status. However, the description never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over siblings, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions.

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