list_moviefile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Read' and 'GET' are consistent with those. It adds the endpoint and query-parameter usage but no additional behavioral context such as filtering effects or response characteristics; no contradiction exists.

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 minimal and well-structured: a one-line purpose, the endpoint, and a short argument list. Every sentence contributes directly to understanding how to call the tool.

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 GET with optional parameters and an output schema, the basics are present enough for an agent to invoke it. Still, the complete absence of usage context and parameter semantics makes it only minimally adequate within the large sibling tool group.

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 does label both parameters as query parameters, which is useful beyond the schema. However, it does not explain what movie_id or movie_file_ids control or how they interact, leaving semantics mostly to inference from the parameter names.

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 specific operation ('Read') and resource ('MovieFile'), and gives the HTTP endpoint. The tool name 'list_moviefile' plus the plural endpoint distinguishes it from single-item read tools like get_moviefile_by_id, though it could be more explicit about listing behavior.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_moviefile_by_id, list_movie, or list_extrafile. The description only restates the route and parameters without offering selection context or exclusions.

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