get_movie_reviews

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond excluding long reviews. It does not disclose sorting, pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements, which is acceptable given the annotation 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 a single sentence that communicates the core purpose without superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 no output schema, the description should hint at the return format or fields. It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about the structure of the review list. Additionally, the description does not mention pagination or ordering, which are common for list endpoints.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter explanations. The 'id' and 'count' parameters are defined in the schema with constraints (pattern, default, etc.), but without a description, the agent may not know 'id' refers to the movie ID or that 'count' limits the number of reviews.

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 it returns short reviews for a movie, excluding long reviews. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_movie' (movie details) and 'get_book_reviews' (different resource), using a specific verb '获取' and resource '短评列表'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for short reviews only, but does not mention when not to use or provide context about other review-related tools like 'get_book_reviews'.

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