get_director

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

The description discloses key behavioral output (AI prompt tokens, representative works, signature techniques) and the 'look up' verb indicates a non-destructive read. However, it does not explicitly state side-effect freeness, auth requirements, or rate limits, which is a minor gap for a lookup tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and efficiently includes necessary return details without any waste. Each sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete. It explains the lookup scope, the source library, and the exact return values, covering all essential context for an agent.

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 fully describes the single parameter 'name' as 'Director name in English or Traditional Chinese' (100% coverage). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond referencing the library scope, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('single director... reference library'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_directors and get_photographer. It also specifies the two included collections, adding precision.

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 implies when to use this tool (when needing a single director's details), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools like list_directors are not named, so guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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