watched_movies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a retrieval operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination details beyond the 'page' parameter, or what happens on errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another explaining the parameter and return value. It's front-loaded with the main function, though the parameter explanation could be integrated more smoothly rather than using Python-style docstring syntax.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return structure beyond 'a dictionary containing the list', missing details like keys, data types, or error handling. For a retrieval tool with siblings, more context is needed to ensure correct 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?

The description adds meaning for the single parameter 'page' by explaining it's for pagination with a default value, which is useful since schema description coverage is 0%. However, it doesn't clarify the pagination model (e.g., page size, total pages) or format, leaving some ambiguity. With one parameter and low schema coverage, this provides basic but incomplete compensation.

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 watched movies from MyShows'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_viewed_episodes' or 'get_myshows_profile_shows_list', which might also retrieve user-specific content.

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. With siblings like 'get_viewed_episodes' and 'get_myshows_profile_shows_list', there's no indication of how this tool differs in scope or context, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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