list_genres_simplified

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: it uses 'LLM sampling' with a fallback to 'direct extraction,' returns a 'formatted string,' sorts the list, and handles errors by logging and falling back. This covers method, output format, and error handling, though it could mention performance or rate limits for a higher score.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: method details, output format, and error handling. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, but minor verbosity in explaining fallback and errors slightly reduces conciseness, preventing a perfect score.

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 moderate complexity (0 params, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is largely complete. It explains the method, output, and error handling. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to detail return values further. However, it could briefly mention the sibling tool 'list_genres' for better context, leaving a small gap.

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 information is needed. The description appropriately focuses on behavior and output without redundant param details. It earns a baseline 4 for compensating with clear operational context, though it doesn't add param-specific semantics since none exist.

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: 'Get a simplified list of available genre names.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('genre names'), and distinguishes it from the sibling 'list_genres' by emphasizing 'simplified' and 'without IDs or media type flags.' However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other siblings like 'categorize_genres' or 'discover_films,' keeping it from a perfect score.

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 'simplified list' and fallback behavior, suggesting it's for when a clean, formatted output is needed. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_genres' or other siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated, making the guidance incomplete.

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