get_movie_by_id_folder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as what the response contains, whether it returns all folders or a specific one, or how missing IDs are handled. Given the annotations, a score of 3 would be acceptable if the description added some clarifying detail, but it does not, so 2 reflects the lack of added behavioral information.

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 very brief (three lines), which meets conciseness but is under-informative. It front-loads the purpose and includes the endpoint, but the lack of any detail on parameters or usage means the structure is not optimal. It is not verbose, but it is not well-balanced either.

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's simplicity (one integer parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it does not provide any context about what a 'MovieFolder' is, how the ID relates to movies, or any edge cases. For a complete agent-facing definition, it should at least clarify that the id is the movie ID and what folder information is returned. The lack of such explanation makes the description incomplete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only states 'id: Path parameter' without explaining that the id is the movie ID, its range, or its format. The endpoint URL implies it is a movie ID, but the description itself adds no semantic value beyond the schema. This fails to help an agent understand the parameter's purpose.

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 'Read MovieFolder' and provides the exact HTTP endpoint 'GET /api/v3/movie/{id}/folder', which clearly indicates the tool retrieves the folder(s) associated with a movie. The verb is 'Read' and the resource is 'MovieFolder', distinguishing it from siblings like get_movie_by_id which retrieves movie details. However, it does not explicitly specify that the folder pertains to a movie until reading the endpoint URL, and it does not contrast with similar folder-related tools.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any statement about prerequisites, when it is appropriate, or why one would choose this over get_movie_by_id or other folder-related endpoints. The only implicit hint is the endpoint structure, but no direct usage context is provided.

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