get_movie

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' accurately signals a read-only operation, and the description transparently conveys what the response contains. It doesn't cover edge cases like not-found behavior, but for a simple GET tool this is a minor gap.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then lists what the full record includes. Every clause earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent needs: the action, the resource, and the content of the response. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit category list.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, including an explicit note that `id` is the Radarr movie id and not the TMDB id. The description adds no significant parameter-level detail beyond what the schema states, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('full record for one movie'), and explicitly enumerates the content categories (file details, ratings, images, availability, statistics, add options). This clearly distinguishes it from list_movies (which returns multiple) and lookup_movie (which searches external sources rather than the local library).

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?

'Get the full record for one movie in the library' provides clear context: use this when you need the complete record for a single known movie using its Radarr id. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'in the library' scope differentiates it from lookup_movie and the singular 'one movie' differentiates it from list_movies.

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