get_diary

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry behavioral context. It makes clear this is a retrieval operation and adds a meaningful behavior: it returns about 50 most recent entries. It does not discuss auth, rate limits, or edge cases, but for a read-only lookup the behavior is reasonably disclosed.

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 two sentences, front-loads the purpose and result fields, and finishes with a concrete use case. Each sentence earns its place, though the field list is a little dense.

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?

With a single parameter, an output schema, and a clear description of returned fields and volume, this is largely complete for making the call. The main missing piece is guidance on the exact username format or pagination behavior, but these are minor for this 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?

The schema has only one parameter, username, with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by indicating this is a Letterboxd user whose recent watched diary will be returned. For a single simple string parameter, this fills the gap well enough.

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 states a clear action and resource: get a Letterboxd user's recent watched films, and it enumerates the returned fields. It is specific enough to understand what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_reviews.

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?

It gives a clear intended use: 'Use to understand someone's taste before recommending movies.' It does not mention when not to use it or explicitly compare with get_reviews, but the context is sufficient for most selection decisions.

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