Guide to third-party content-provider APIs used by Lampa plugins

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it is curated from a separate repository, not the Lampa app source, and it never returns API keys/tokens/passwords, only identity, auth mechanism, and storage key names. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: scope, exclusions, security boundary, and parameter routing. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids filler or repetition of schema content.

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 annotations cover safety, the output schema exists, and the schema covers all parameters, the description provides complete context for selecting and invoking the tool. It also notes the provenance and security boundary, which are important contextual facts an agent would otherwise not know.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the operational meaning of each topic value: providers lists/searches, provider_detail requires provider, and proxy_pattern takes no parameters and explains the shared design once. This goes slightly beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Document') with a clearly bounded resource: third-party content/ratings/torrent-indexer/media-server APIs used by Lampa plugins. It explicitly enumerates the covered providers and distinguishes itself from guide_cub and list_catalog, so an agent can disambiguate it without opening schemas.

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 explicitly names sibling tools it is unlike (guide_cub for Lampa→CUB only, list_catalog for Lampa's own surface) and provides routing rules for the three topic values. It also states a hard constraint: never return secret values. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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