list_genres

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by specifying the return format as a dictionary mapping genre names to properties. It discloses behavioral traits like the structure of returned data (genre names with id, has_films, has_tv_shows), which is valuable beyond basic listing. It doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits or auth needs, but for a read-only list tool, this is acceptable.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by a concise specification of the return format. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, read-only operation), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does and the return format in detail. Since an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values further, and it adequately covers the tool's purpose and behavior.

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 the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is fine since there are no parameters to document. It doesn't detract from the schema, maintaining the baseline score.

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 specific verb 'List' and resource 'all available entertainment genres across media types and providers.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_genres_simplified' by specifying comprehensive coverage across media types and providers, and from 'categorize_genres' by focusing on listing rather than categorization.

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 context by mentioning 'across media types and providers,' suggesting this tool is for broad genre discovery. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. 'list_genres_simplified' or alternatives like 'discover_films' for specific media types, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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