list_game_videosList available gameplay videos for split-screen overlays (content top, game bottom). Use the exact gameVideoName when creating shorts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number | |
| limit | No | Items per page (1-100) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly states the action 'List available' indicating a read operation, and adds the layout detail. However, it does not describe response format, pagination behavior, or any other side effects, which is a gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 sentences, each earning its place. First sentence states the action and context; second sentence provides actionable direction for downstream usage. No redundant words.
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 tool with two optional pagination parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it states the purpose (split-screen overlays), the layout, and the relationship to create_short. The only missing piece is a description of the return fields, but the reference to gameVideoName partially covers that.
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 input schema provides 100% description coverage for both parameters (page and limit) with defaults and bounds. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond mentioning gameVideoName, which is not an input parameter but an output field referenced for create_short. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'available gameplay videos' and provides context 'for split-screen overlays (content top, game bottom)', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_music or list_meme_hooks. It also clarifies its role in the workflow with 'Use the exact gameVideoName when creating shorts.'
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 by linking to create_short ('Use the exact gameVideoName when creating shorts'), providing clear context for acquiring video names. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention cases where another list tool would be preferred, so not a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: create, delete, status, shorts retrieval, and separate list tools for each asset type (game videos, meme hooks, music, templates, requests). No two tools have overlapping purposes.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., create_short, list_music, get_status). The naming is uniform and predictable.
Nine tools is well-scoped for a clipping service: it covers creation, status, retrieval, deletion, request listing, and asset selection. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of short creation: create, check status, retrieve results, and delete. Additionally, all necessary asset list tools are present to support creation, leaving no obvious gaps.