discover_top_rated_missing

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the tool discovers movies from Trakt sources with rating filters, suggesting read-only behavior. However, it omits details like external API dependency, rate limits, or potential delays, which are relevant for an agent.

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 exceptionally concise: one sentence for purpose and a bullet list of parameters. No repeated or redundant information. Each element serves a purpose.

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 the 5 parameters, optional nature, and existence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's behavior and parameter semantics. However, it lacks usage guidelines relative to siblings and is in French, which may hinder some agents. It is mostly complete for a discovery tool.

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%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter semantics. It provides French explanations for each parameter (source, period, min_imdb_rating, limit, exclude_genres), adding meaning beyond the schema's default values and types. The language barrier slightly reduces clarity but still adds substantive value.

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's purpose: discovering highly rated movies not yet in the user's collection. It uses a specific verb ('discover') and resource ('missing top-rated movies'), and the context of sibling Plex tools (e.g., plex_search, plex_get_libraries) makes it distinctive.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like plex_search or plex_search_movies. It implies use for missing items but doesn't explicitly state scenarios or contrast with sibling tools.

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