list_terms

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the constraint that terms are 'used in the archive' and that search narrows to names 'containing this,' but it does not disclose sorting, pagination, or exact matching behavior.

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 compact and well-structured: one opening sentence establishes the tool's purpose, followed by a terse, useful Args list. Every line adds meaning without 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 list tool with a strong annotations profile and an output schema present, the description covers the essential behavior and all parameter semantics. No critical information needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 carries full responsibility, and it succeeds: it enumerates the valid taxonomy values, explains search as a substring filter, and defines limit as the number of terms returned. This is exactly the meaning an agent needs beyond the bare schema.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'List genres, directors, writers or actors used in the archive.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_films and search_films by stating the taxonomy categories it returns.

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 clear context: use this tool to retrieve taxonomy terms from the archive, with optional search narrowing and limit controls. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the intended use is obvious from the stated purpose.

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