get_fully_watched

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what 'fully watched' means (e.g., 100% progress), or any limitations (e.g., whether it includes partially watched items). No side effects are stated, but the lack of detail reduces transparency.

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, concise sentence with no superfluous information. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description should compensate by describing return format (e.g., list of items, fields). It does not. Also, it lacks context on pagination (limit is a parameter) or whether 'fully watched' is determined by progress. Incomplete for a tool with no output schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds the concept of 'fully watched' but does not elaborate on parameters beyond the schema. For example, 'libraryKey' is optional but no hint on default behavior (all libraries).

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 action ('Get') and resource ('all fully watched movies and shows from a library'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_watch_history' or 'get_recently_watched', which could lead to confusion about what 'fully watched' entails.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like 'get_recently_watched' or 'get_watch_stats' may serve similar purposes, but the description does not clarify the unique use case.

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