list_genres_movie

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 fully covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context—the endpoint and the phrase 'official TMDB'—but does not elaborate on caching, response formatting, or any side effects beyond the obvious read operation. This is acceptable given the annotations, though not particularly rich.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the description is short. However, the 'Args' section merely restates the schema and provides no additional value, which is slight redundancy. Overall it is concise and well-structured, missing a perfect score only due to that unnecessary repetition.

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 list tool with no required parameters and an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient for correct invocation. The main gap is the under-documented `language` parameter—its semantics are not explained, which could lead to incorrect calls. The rest of the context (purpose, endpoint, safety from annotations) is adequate.

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 input schema has a single `language` parameter with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description only repeats 'language: Query parameter' in the Args section, which adds no semantic meaning. It does not explain what values are expected (e.g., ISO codes), what the parameter does (localization), or whether it is optional—though the schema indicates default null. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 verb ('Get list') and resource ('official TMDB movie genres'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is distinct from sibling `list_genres_tv` by explicitly specifying 'movie' genres, and from discovery tools like `get_discover_movies_genre_by_genre_id` by indicating it returns the full list rather than a specific genre's movies.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for movie genres, which provides context for when to use it versus the sibling `list_genres_tv`. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use them, but the media-type qualifier in the description is enough to guide selection for a simple list endpoint.

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