list_videos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'rendered' and lists filters, but does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, sorting, or any side effects. For a read-only list tool, this is a notable gap given there is no output schema.

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 useful opening sentence followed by a parameter list. Each parameter is one line, and it is front-loaded with the purpose. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Parameter semantics are thorough, but the description lacks details about the response structure (fields returned) or pagination behavior beyond limit/offset. Given no output schema, this is a gap for a list operation. 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 Args section adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema. For example, video_type is enumerated ('slideshow', 'ugc', 'greenscreen'), limit has a default and max, and created_after/before specify ISO 8601. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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') and resource ('rendered videos') with optional filters. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_video (single retrieval) and list_automations (different resource type).

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 usage context through 'optional filters' (e.g., filter by automation, status), but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_video or get_video_analytics. No exclusionary guidance is given.

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