browse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost nothing. It does not disclose whether results are paginated (despite limit/offset), how lists are ordered, or whether authentication is required for this read.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the key scoping qualifier ('site-wide') is front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the definition still leaves major gaps: three undocumented parameters, no annotation coverage, and no pagination or auth context. For a 3-param tool it is too thin to guide correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely fails. It echoes the list_name enum values (popular, hot, new) but says nothing about limit or offset pagination semantics, leaving two of three parameters unexplained anywhere.

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 identifies the resource ('site-wide lists') and the variant values ('popular, hot or new shows'), which lets an agent separate it from user_shows and genre_shows. However, it never states the action verb and 'browse' alone is vague, so the purpose is only implied rather than explicit.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus siblings like search, user_shows, or genre_shows. The word 'site-wide' hints at a distinction but the agent must infer it; no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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