discover_movies

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden. It communicates a non-mutating discovery operation through the verb 'List' and discloses the output shape as 'candidates with tmdbIds.' It does not cover pagination or empty-result behavior, but for a simple list tool this is reasonable.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core purpose and scope are front-loaded, and the useful output hint about tmdbIds is appended without bloating the text.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides the key return concept: candidates with tmdbIds for add_movie. The source context is clear and the schema covers parameter details. It could be more complete with explicit defaults and a note distinguishing it from list_movies, but the essential information is present.

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?

The input schema already documents all four parameters with descriptions, so the description only needs to add high-level meaning. It does this by mentioning optional Radarr feeds, which maps to the include_* booleans, but it does not clarify defaults or how limit is applied across the merged sources.

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 verb and resource: 'List movies suggested by the import lists plus, optionally, Radarr's recommended, trending and popular feeds.' This clearly distinguishes it from library-centric siblings like list_movies. It also signals the downstream purpose by saying it returns candidates with tmdbIds for add_movie.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when the agent needs to surface candidate movies from import lists or Radarr feeds before adding them. It explicitly ties the output to add_movie, which helps routing, though it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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