related_documentsArchive documents related to a commentary video, ranked by relevance and diversified across release programs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| videoId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by mentioning relevance ranking and diversification across release programs, but it does not explain return format, pagination, or the effect of the limit parameter.
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, focused sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource before adding the ranking and diversification details.
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 is simple, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, with no output schema, the description should at least hint at the response shape or the role of limit; both are left to inference.
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 that videoId refers to a commentary video, but it gives no meaning to the limit parameter, its default of 3, or how it interacts with the ranking/diversification behavior.
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 what the tool does: find archive documents related to a commentary video. The added ranking/diversification details help distinguish it from siblings like related_commentary or search_documents.
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 intended use is implied: when a user needs documents related to a specific commentary video. However, the description does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as related_commentary or search_documents, nor does it state when not to use this tool.
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 pairs a single action (get, list, search, related) with a distinct resource type, so there is no real overlap. Cross-references in descriptions also actively clarify the intended separation between search_documents, search_videos, search_semantic, and the get_video full-detail endpoint.
All tools follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern: get_*, list_*, search_*, and related_*. There are no mixed conventions, vague generic verbs, or unpredictable naming styles.
Fourteen tools is well within the ideal range and each one earns its place: five getters, four search methods, three listers, and two related-content navigators. The count is broad enough to cover the research archive without becoming bloated.
The archive is retrieval-focused, and the tool surface covers all major entities: documents, news, sightings, videos, and beings, plus bidirectional related-content browsing. Search, semantic search, and source-key listing provide the discovery paths a research archive needs; no obvious dead ends or missing core operations are apparent.