get_wanted

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly explains the key behavioral distinctions: 'missing' movies have no file and 'cutoff' movies have a file below the quality cutoff. The verb 'List' clarifies this is a read operation, though it does not describe output structure or pagination behavior beyond the schema.

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 entire description is one efficient sentence that front-loads the operation and immediately defines the important domain terms. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 list-style tool with a well-covered schema, the description explains the central semantic difference between the two result types. It does not describe the return fields or default sorting, but the core behavior and required kind parameter are sufficiently covered.

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 high at 83%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by defining what the 'kind' parameter values ('missing' and 'cutoff') actually mean, which the schema's enum alone does not convey.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') and a distinct resource ('wanted movies'), then defines the two kinds ('missing' and 'cutoff') with concrete meanings. It is clear and not tautological, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools to distinguish itself from.

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 when to use the tool by explaining that it lists wanted movies with two variants, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over list_movies or other list-like siblings. No when-not conditions or alternative routing are provided.

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