Frameverb

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

The annotations already cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds a real behavioral fact: wired routes are not proof of enabled submission or usable credentials, so the returned data is declarative rather than a live capability check. The "No provider calls or spending" clause reinforces the safety profile with concrete consequences not implied by the annotation alone.

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?

Three short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. Nothing is redundant, though the middle sentence is dense enough that it reads as a warning rather than a usable explanation.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of indicating what is returned, and it only hints at "contracts" without describing shape or contents. It also omits the sole parameter, leaving key call-shaping information absent.

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 there is one parameter, "surface", with an enum of local/hosted, yet the description never mentions it or explains what choosing a surface changes in the results. With a single undocumented parameter, the description should have compensated and does not.

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?

It uses a specific verb ("List") with a resource, but the resource is described only as "versioned task, input, control and execution contracts", which is internal jargon an agent cannot ground in anything concrete. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling list_routes beyond the parenthetical caveat in sentence two.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool, when not to, or when to prefer list_routes. The sentence about wired routes is a caveat about interpretation, not guidance on tool selection.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and locality are covered. The description adds only the boundary that no media is generated, and hints the payload includes release gates; it says nothing about ordering, volume, or whether routes are scoped to a workspace or account.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and result content, followed by a single scoping disclaimer. Nothing is redundant and no sentence is padding.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description names both the entity returned and one notable field (release gates), which is enough to select and call it. It could say slightly more about what a 'route' is or the listing scope, but that is a minor gap at this complexity.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to mis-specify; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies an unfiltered, full listing rather than a parameterized query.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('video routes'), and adds what data comes back ('their current release gates'). The resource is clearly distinct from the only sibling, list_capabilities, though the description never names or contrasts that sibling.

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 line 'This does not generate media' pre-empts a plausible misread and implies this is a metadata-only read, which is a small piece of when-to-use guidance. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this over list_capabilities or what prerequisites (auth, scope) apply.

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