seerr_discover

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the fact that these are read-only operations, so the bar for additional behavioral disclosure is lower. The description does add some context by noting that some operations reference TMDB data (e.g., 'Languages supported by TMDB'), but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination expectations, rate limits, or output structure beyond what the output schema supplies. No contradictions found.

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 lengthy but highly structured, with a clear intro line followed by a compact bulleted list of operations. Every line conveys new, necessary information for a 28-operation dispatcher. It avoids unnecessary prose, though the repeated 'seerr_' prefix adds some redundancy. Overall, the structure 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?

Given the complexity (28 operations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers all operation names, parameters, and one-line semantics. The main gap is that it does not explicitly explain which parameters are required for each operation (implied by omission of defaults) or how to structure the arguments dict beyond 'matching that operation's parameters'. This is a minor deficiency for an otherwise strong catalog.

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 only defines a generic 'operation' enum and an untyped 'arguments' object, with 0% schema description coverage. The description compensates by listing exact parameter signatures for every operation, including defaults (e.g., page=1, language=None). However, it does not provide types or allowed values for parameters like sort_by or certification_mode, so it falls short of fully explicating argument semantics.

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 clearly states this tool handles Seerr discover operations and provides an exhaustive list of 28 sub-operations, each with a concise one-line purpose (e.g., 'Get movies from keyword', 'Discover TV shows by network'). The operation names and descriptions distinguish this tool from sibling tools like seerr_search and seerr_media_titles, making its scope unambiguous.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this dispatcher versus alternative tools like seerr_search or seerr_media_titles. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or selection criteria. The operation list implies usage for discovery/browsing, but the agent is left to infer that search-related queries belong elsewhere.

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