get_myshows_profile_shows_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return type ('A dictionary containing the list of tv shows'), which is helpful, but fails to mention critical aspects like whether authentication is required, rate limits, pagination behavior, or error conditions. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves important behavioral traits unspecified.

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 concise sentences that efficiently state the purpose and return value. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and avoids unnecessary elaboration. However, the colon before ':return:' is slightly awkward, and it could be structured more cleanly (e.g., 'Returns: A dictionary...'), but this is a minor issue.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and return type, but lacks context about authentication, error handling, or sibling differentiation, which would be valuable for an agent. Without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it meets the bare minimum for a basic retrieval tool.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description need not compensate for any gaps, and it correctly avoids redundant details about inputs.

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 verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('list of tv shows from the MyShows profile'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_shows' (searching) or 'get_calendar_episodes' (calendar-focused), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The description avoids tautology by specifying what is retrieved beyond just the tool name.

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 like 'get_myshows_recomendations' or 'get_viewed_episodes'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs) or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the purpose alone. This is a significant gap for a tool with multiple siblings.

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