LoveTheNorth Public Videos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the transcript is public and that availability is conditional, but it does not state what happens when a transcript is not available (error, null, empty result) nor what the return value looks like. Safety is implied by 'Retrieve', but the conditional behavior is left 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?

A single well-structured sentence that states the action, resource, scope, and a key condition without any filler or redundancy. The core scope is front-loaded and every word 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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool, the purpose is clear enough for basic use, but the absence of an output schema and annotations means the description should at least hint at the return format or behavior when the transcript is unavailable. The 'when available' caveat is stated but its consequences are not, leaving minor but real ambiguity.

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%, and the description never mentions the 'id' parameter by name. However, saying 'for one video' clarifies that the id refers to a video identifier, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. It does not specify the expected id format or note that the id likely corresponds to the same one used by get_video.

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 ('Retrieve') and a specific resource ('public transcript for one video'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_video, recent_videos, and search_videos, which deal with videos themselves. The qualifier 'when available' adds precision about the tool's scope.

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 the tool should be used when a transcript for a specific video is wanted, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over its siblings or what to use instead for other needs. There are no exclusions or alternative mentions, leaving the agent to infer from the sibling tool names.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Retrieve' implies a read operation and 'public' indicates access level, which is useful, but it does not disclose what a 'video record' contains, how missing/invalid IDs are handled, or whether the response is metadata or media content. This is adequate for a simple fetch but not richly transparent.

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 one tight sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, and every remaining word ('one,' 'public,' 'stable') contributes meaning.

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 single-parameter fetch, the description covers the essential facts: what is retrieved, by what key, and the public access level. But with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves unspecified the shape of the returned 'video record,' error behavior for unknown IDs, and whether this returns metadata or media content. It is adequate but not complete.

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 schema only declares 'id' as a required string with no description. The tool description adds that this ID is 'stable' and identifies 'one public video record,' giving the parameter meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not describe ID format, provenance, or how to distinguish this ID from related transcript or search IDs, and with 0% schema coverage more compensation would be welcome.

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 ('Retrieve'), a precise resource ('one public video record'), and the lookup key ('stable ID'). It is clearly distinct from siblings: get_transcript targets a different resource, while recent_videos and search_videos return collections rather than a single record.

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 makes the usage context clear: call this when you have a stable video ID and need the corresponding single video record. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or name alternatives, but the sibling tool names and the singular framing make the intended use obvious.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the operation is read-only ('Retrieve') and scoped to public content, but it does not mention pagination behavior, ordering, whether 'changed' means created or updated, or any response characteristics.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently packs the action, resource, and filtering condition into one compact clause.

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 list endpoint with three optional parameters, the description is minimally viable: it states the main filter and the resource. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves gaps around pagination, result shape, and exact timestamp semantics that an agent would need for robust use.

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 clarifies the meaning of updated_since ('changed after a timestamp'), but it adds nothing about limit or cursor, leaving their roles to be inferred from their names and schema properties alone.

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 names a specific action ('Retrieve'), a resource ('public videos'), and a selection criterion ('changed after a timestamp'). This makes the tool's core purpose clear and distinguishes it from get_transcript and get_video, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from search_videos.

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 when to use the tool: when the user wants recently changed public videos. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer for other scenarios, such as keyword-based discovery via search_videos.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds 'public' scope, which is useful, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, result shape, authentication needs, or how the search is matched. This is a significant gap for a search 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 sentence is short and front-loaded, with no filler. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness, so it does not earn a higher score.

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?

The tool has six optional parameters, no parameter descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations. A one-line description naming the resource and action is far too incomplete for an agent to select parameters or interpret results confidently.

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%, and the description adds no meaning for any of the six parameters: type, limit, query, cursor, company, or updated_since. An agent is left to guess what each parameter controls, which the description should have compensated for.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and a clear resource ('public LoveTheNorth videos and LTN Snips'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_video, get_transcript, and recent_videos, which are all different operations.

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 the tool is for searching videos rather than retrieving a specific one or listing recent ones. However, it does not explicitly explain when to prefer this over recent_videos or get_video, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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