get_lists_by_id_items_movie

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already disclose that this is a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that—no mention of pagination, return format, or any operational quirks. It essentially repeats parameter names with minimal explanation.

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 verbose and repetitive, listing 19 parameters with terse labels that often just restate the parameter name. While it is front-loaded with the purpose, the long parameter list is not concise and many entries are uninformative. A more streamlined explanation would be more effective.

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 tool with 19 parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the response contains, how filtering works, or what 'extended' options are available. It also fails to clarify the meaning of the filtering parameters. Given the tool's complexity, a complete description should provide at least an overview of expected output and parameter usage.

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, but it fails. Many parameters are described only as 'Query parameter' (e.g., genres, subgenres, years), adding no meaning beyond the schema. The watchnow parameter receives a detailed explanation of valid values, which is helpful, but this is the exception. Most parameters lack functional context.

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 'Get movie list items.' and includes the endpoint GET /lists/{id}/items/movie, making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_lists_by_id_items_show or get_lists_by_id_items_movie_show, relying on the name to convey the movie-specific scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for movie items only or how it differs from other list-item retrieval tools. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are given.

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