Curate For Tonight

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only filter but never confirms it, and says nothing about how results are selected or ranked, whether an empty result is possible, or what happens when filters are omitted (all defaults are null/optional).

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 tight sentence with no filler and the filtering criteria front-loaded. It is efficient but borders on under-specification for a five-parameter curation tool.

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-value explanation is not required. Still, for a 5-parameter, zero-required, annotation-free tool, the description does not convey the curation/selection behavior (how many picks, how they are chosen) that distinguishes it from a plain watchlist lookup.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including defaults and examples. The description's mention of time, genre, and IMDb rating adds nothing beyond the schema and leaves media_type and count unmentioned; 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?

States a clear verb (filter) and resource (watchlist) plus three filtering criteria, so an agent can tell it produces a narrowed list. However, it never differentiates itself from siblings like get_watchlist or search_media, and it omits two of its own parameters (media_type, count), leaving the 'curated subset' angle unexplained.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus get_watchlist (unfiltered list) or get_agent_recommendation_brief / vet_recommendation_candidate. The 'tonight' intent in the name suggests a time-boxed personalized pick, but the description never states that condition or any exclusion.

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