anilist_taste

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description goes beyond by detailing the nature of the output (genre weights, themes, scoring patterns, chart, format split). No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states the core action, second provides usage guidance and output specifics. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description lists key output components (genre weights, themes, patterns, chart, format split). For a tool that generates a summary profile, this is sufficiently complete given the well-documented parameters.

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 100%. Both parameters have adequate descriptions in the schema (username with fallback and constraints, type with enum default). The tool description does not add new semantic details beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Generate', the resource 'taste profile summary from a user's completed list', and lists specific output items (genre weights, themes, scoring patterns, chart, format split). Among many sibling tools like anilist_stats and anilist_genres, this description distinguishes itself by focusing on a holistic taste profile.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use when the user asks about their anime/manga preferences, what genres they like, or how they tend to score.' It does not mention when not to use or name alternative tools, but the context of siblings is vast and the usage scenario is clear enough.

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