search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool 'Returns movies, shows, episodes, and more,' which is minimal. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, how matching works, or behavior on empty/no results.

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 with no redundant filler. Every word contributes to the core meaning, though 'and more' is slightly vague. It is concise and appropriately scoped for a simple search tool.

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 two-parameter search tool, the description plus input schema provide a minimally viable picture: a required query and an optional limit with default. However, it lacks information about query syntax, search scope details, and when to prefer a sibling tool. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but usage and parameter guidance remain thin.

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%, so the description must compensate for the schema's silence. It adds some meaning by indicating the query is a title search, but it does not explain the 'limit' parameter, acceptable query formats, search behavior, or result ordering. The description only partially clarifies the 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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('the Jellyfin library') and clarifies that search is by title. It also indicates the result types (movies, shows, episodes), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like info, sessions, libraries, and next_up. It is clear, 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?

The description implies the tool should be used when an agent needs to find library items by title. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool might be a better fit for non-title searches. Usage context is inferable but not stated.

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