genre_shows

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the lookup uses the tag's own connections (metadata=1) and that the意的 error enumerates valid list_names, which is genuine behavioral context. It still omits read-only nature, auth requirements, and pagination behavior.

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 compact clauses with the core resource statement front-loaded, followed by the important constraint. No filler sentences, though the second sentence is slightly dense and could be split.

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 values need not be explained, and the description covers the main gotcha (list_name validation). Still, for a 4-parameter listing tool with no annotations it leaves pagination, ordering, and auth context unaddressed.

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 must compensate. It clarifies the non-obvious list_name parameter (must be one the tag offers) and implicitly the tag parameter, which is valuable. But limit and offset are left completely undocumented, so half the parameters have no added meaning.

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 phrase 'Shows of a tag/genre' names a specific resource and makes clear it returns shows belonging to a tag, which is reasonably distinct from get_tag or get_show. However, it uses a noun phrase with no explicit verb and never names a sibling like user_shows or browse to reinforce the boundary.

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 gives a validity constraint for list_name but says nothing about when to choose this tool over search, browse, or user_shows. No prerequisites about auth or tag existence are provided, so usage context must be inferred.

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