categorize_genres

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and discloses key behavioral traits: it uses a 'hybrid approach' combining hardcoded mappings and LLM-based categorization, and specifies the return format. However, it lacks details on performance, rate limits, or error handling.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by implementation details and return format. It is appropriately sized with no wasted sentences, though the return example is detailed but necessary for clarity.

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's complexity (hybrid approach), no annotations, and an output schema (implied by the detailed return example), the description is largely complete. It explains the categorization method and output, though could benefit from more context on limitations or edge cases.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter details are needed. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's function and output, adding value beyond the empty schema without redundancy.

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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Categorize', 'Groups') and resources ('all available genres', 'entertainment genres'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_genres' and 'list_genres_simplified' by focusing on mood-based categorization rather than listing.

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 usage by mentioning 'edge cases and unknown genres', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_genres' or 'discover_films'. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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