メディア記録検索

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, case sensitivity, or error handling. The description is too brief for an AI agent to understand all behavioral implications.

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 that is front-loaded with the key action and purpose. Every word is meaningful, and it avoids repetition or fluff.

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 tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides minimal context. It clarifies the search scope and type behavior but lacks details on sorting, pagination, or result structure, which would be needed for full correctness.

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 0%, but the description provides partial semantics: keyword is for title/author, type filters by media type (with default of all if unspecified). However, it does not explain the limit parameter or provide format details for the parameters.

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?

Description clearly states the tool searches media records (books, movies, anime, games) by keyword in title/author, and mentions the use case for 'have you read/watched/played?' judgment. It distinguishes from sibling tools like media_by_creator by being a general keyword search.

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 context on when to use (for checking if someone has consumed a media item) and implies that if type is unspecified, all types are searched. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives like media_by_creator.

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