List films (gallery)

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already establish that this is a safe, open-world read operation. The description adds useful context about archive totals, slugs, and full-film download links, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, default/max result sizes, or other behavioral details beyond the structured annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded, stating the core listing behavior first and then adding the useful detail about slugs and download links. There is no redundant or wasted language.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description gives a reasonable sense of the returned items and totals. However, with four parameters and only 25% schema description coverage, it is not complete enough regarding pagination and sorting, and it lacks explicit sibling routing.

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 only 25%, so the description should compensate by explaining the four parameters, but it mentions none of sort, limit, offset, or direction. The schema does describe sort and provide enums, which helps somewhat, but the pagination parameters remain undocumented in both places.

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 and resource: it lists source films in the archive/Gallery and includes archive totals. It also hints at the relationship to get_source by noting each film has a slug, but it does not distinguish itself from all relevant siblings such as search_clips or list_collections.

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 this is the browse-level operation for source films and that get_source is the follow-up for a specific film. However, it does not explicitly say when to use list_sources instead of search_clips, list_collections, or download, leaving the choice mostly implied.

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