list_extrafile

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's 'Read' language is consistent with those annotations but adds no meaningful behavioral context beyond the GET endpoint; it does not disclose filtering semantics, pagination, or any side effects.

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 appropriately short and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the 'Args: movie_id: Query parameter' line largely restates information already present in the input schema, so not every sentence earns its place. Overall it is compact but contains some redundancy.

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?

For a simple read-only endpoint with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. It is missing explicit statement of the list behavior and the semantics of the movie_id filter, but the schema's default null and the tool name give reasonable hints. The structured annotations and output schema compensate for part of the sparseness.

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 had to supply the meaning of movie_id. It only labels the argument as 'Query parameter,' which adds little beyond the schema's title and default value. The description does not explain that movie_id filters the results or that omitting it returns all extra files.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource ('Read ExtraFile') and includes the API endpoint, so an agent can identify this as a read operation on the ExtraFile resource. It does not explicitly state that this is a list operation or differentiate itself from get/list siblings, but the unique resource name and the tool name 'list_extrafile' make the intended purpose reasonably clear.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the numerous sibling list_* and get_* tools. It does not mention that movie_id is an optional filter, nor does it suggest any alternative for retrieving related resources. An agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and endpoint.

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