get_title

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the mutable nature of the type field and the users_recommendations field, but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, nor does it cover error cases or authentication requirements. The output schema covers return structure, so that is acceptable.

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 concise, using three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose, then clarifies the type field and mentions the recommendations field. The structure is logical and easy to scan.

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 get tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: the return scope and the type semantics. However, it omits any mention of prerequisites like authentication or how the simkl_id should be obtained, which could leave an agent uncertain about the full calling context.

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. It thoroughly explains the type parameter (movie, tv, anime, and its changeable nature), but gives no additional detail about simkl_id beyond its name. The ID is self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify how to obtain it or its format.

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 clearly states the tool returns a 'full detail record for one title' including viewer-based neighbors. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on a single title's complete record, and the type field clarification adds specificity.

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 guidance on the type parameter, advising to follow Simkl's classification rather than assume. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like search or resolve_id, nor does it state any prerequisites such as needing a simkl_id from another endpoint.

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