TubePull

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

Despite no annotations, the description comprehensively discloses behavioral traits: returns a one-time signed download link valid for 1 hour, includes file size/duration/format, warns not to fetch contents yourself, and states intended legitimate uses. It also explains the default format behavior and audio-platform override.

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 well-structured with clear sections and bold key points, but it is somewhat lengthy. However, every sentence adds value; the length is justified by the complexity and the need to provide comprehensive guidance.

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?

Given that there is no output schema and 3 parameters, the description fully covers return values, restrictions, caveats, and usage scenarios. It leaves no obvious gaps for the agent to misunderstand.

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% and the description adds substantial context beyond the schema. For the 'format' parameter, it explains when to use each enum value with detailed user-intent mapping. For 'quality', it documents tier restrictions. The 'url' parameter description lists all supported domains and clarifies single-video limitation.

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 downloads video/audio from supported platforms, distinguishing it from the sibling get_video_info which only retrieves metadata. The verb 'download' and specific resource 'video or audio' are well defined.

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 provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, lists example user requests, and names the alternative tool get_video_info for metadata-only requests. It also clarifies prohibited use cases like playlists or unsupported platforms.

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 provided, so description carries full burden. It clarifies read-only nature (metadata fetch), lists returned data, and notes free usage. Minor gap: no mention of rate limits or authentication.

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?

Well-structured with bullet lists and clear sections. Slightly verbose but each sentence adds information. Could be tightened without losing clarity.

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?

No output schema, so description compensates by listing all returned fields (title, uploader, duration, etc.). For a single-param tool with clear purpose, it is fully adequate.

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?

Only one parameter (url) with 100% schema coverage. Description adds value by listing supported URL formats (e.g., youtube.com, tiktok.com) and platforms, enhancing the schema's default description.

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 fetches metadata without downloading, specifies supported platforms, and lists returned fields. It distinguishes from sibling tool download_video.

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use examples (e.g., 'what is this video about') and when-not-to (download). Also mentions it's free and can be called before download_video for verification.

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