seerr_list_regions

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not mention pagination, response format, ordering, or any special traits. Since the annotation already indicates a safe read operation, the description contributes minimal additional value.

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 concise phrase with no redundant wording. However, it is under-specified and could benefit from a brief usage note, though for such a simple tool, the brevity is acceptable and does not hinder readability.

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?

Given the tool has zero parameters, an output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description is mostly sufficient. The only gap is that it does not clarify the distinction from closely related sibling tools like 'seerr_list_watchproviders_regions', but the overall simplicity keeps the description complete enough for basic use.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meanings or formats, and it correctly remains simple. No parameter-related information is missing.

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 'Regions supported by TMDB' clearly states the tool lists supported regions from TMDB. The name 'seerr_list_regions' includes the verb 'list', and the description differentiates from sibling tools like 'seerr_list_watchproviders_regions' by focusing on general regions rather than region-specific watch providers.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool, nor any mention of alternatives or exclusions. The description simply states what it returns, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone. No context is provided for how this list might be used (e.g., for filtering requests, discover, etc.).

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