List collections

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine workflow context beyond that: entries carry a `key` consumed by vod_collection, and any vod_genres slug works as `namava:category:<slug>`. It doesn't say anything about result size or pagination, but for a read-only listing tool with full annotations the bar is low.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded with examples, followed by the use trigger and the chaining detail. Three short lines with no filler, though the trailing `namava:category:<slug>` sentence packs a second concept into what reads like a parenthetical aside.

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 one-parameter read-only listing with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns at a high level (entries with a `key`) and how to use it. It leaves the entry shape otherwise unspecified and says nothing about ordering or result volume, which are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage and an enum, the schema fully documents `site`. The description only echoes the two site names and adds no detail on default or how 'both' results are distinguished. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

"List the curated lists vod_collection can open on Filimo and Namava" gives a specific verb, resource, and scope, and explicitly ties itself to the sibling vod_collection. The concrete examples (IMDb top 250, Oscar, kids, coming soon) remove any ambiguity about what a "collection" is here.

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?

"Use when the user asks for a themed list (best-of, festival winners, kids, Korean or Turkish series, true stories)" is a clear use trigger, and it names the follow-up tool (vod_collection) that consumes the returned key. It stops short of explicit exclusions – it never says to prefer vod_genres or vod_search for non-themed queries, and the namava:category note blurs the line with vod_genres.

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