get_movie_chart

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds context about chart kinds but does not explain pagination behavior (start/count) or any other traits beyond annotations, missing an opportunity given zero schema description coverage.

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 extremely concise, using two short sentences to state purpose and key parameter meaning without any unnecessary words, demonstrating excellent front-loading and brevity.

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?

For a simple list tool with no output schema, the description covers chart types and purpose but omits return format and pagination details (start/count), leaving some gaps in completeness.

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. It only explains the 'kind' parameter's enum values (top250, weekly, new), leaving 'count' and 'start' completely undocumented, which is inadequate for parameter understanding.

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 retrieves movie charts ('获取电影榜单') and lists the available kinds (top250, weekly, new), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_book_chart or search_movie.

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 for getting pre-defined movie charts by enumerating kinds, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like get_movie or search_movie, or when not to use it.

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