letterboxd_film

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

The description mentions 'credential-free public Letterboxd data' and the data source, which is valuable behavioral context given no annotations. It could mention error behavior or rate limits, but overall it provides good transparency.

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 action and returned fields, followed by source context. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Without an output schema, the description lists key returned fields, which is helpful. It omits details about field structures or error handling, but is sufficiently complete for a simple data 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with the parameter description 'Letterboxd film slug'. The tool description does not add extra meaning or examples beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves a Letterboxd film and lists specific fields like synopsis, director, cast, etc. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like letterboxd_search or letterboxd_film_reviews by focusing on a single film via slug.

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 implies usage when you have a film slug, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like search or review tools. No 'when-not-to-use' or contrast with siblings.

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