list_movie_files

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. It does convey a read-only intent through 'List' and explains the empty-parameter behavior ('neither for every file'), but it does not address what happens when both movie_ids and movie_file_ids are supplied, nor does it describe pagination or response structure.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence fronts the action and result fields; the second covers the three invocation modes. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple with two optional params and no output schema. The description covers return contents ('quality, size, languages and media info') and filter mechanisms. The only notable gap is the semantics of combining both movie_ids and movie_file_ids, which an agent might reasonably attempt.

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 100%, so the parametters are individually documented. The description adds meaning by clarifying the selection modes: movie ids, file ids, or neither for all files. This goes beyond the plain schema descriptions and helps an agent understand how to use the optional filters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: list media files for movies, including quality, size, languages, and media info. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_movies or get_movie, which deal with movie metadata rather than files.

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 phrase 'Pass movie ids, file ids, or neither for every file in the library' gives clear practical guidance on how to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the tool's purpose is evident from the description and siblings.

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