hotvideolist

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The single-word description 'hotvideolist' reveals nothing about whether this is a read or write operation, what data it returns, whether it has side effects, rate limits, authentication needs, or any other behavioral traits. This is completely inadequate for a tool with zero 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?

While the description is extremely concise (one word), this is a case of harmful under-specification rather than effective brevity. The single word 'hotvideolist' fails to convey necessary information, making it inefficient rather than well-structured. True conciseness balances brevity with completeness, which this description does not achieve.

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 the complete lack of annotations and no output schema, the description provides virtually no contextual information. For a tool that presumably returns some kind of video list data (inferred from the name only), the description fails to explain what 'hot' means, what format the results take, or any other operational context. This is severely incomplete.

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 has zero parameters (schema coverage 100%), so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps. According to the rules, 0 parameters earns a baseline score of 4, as the description cannot be faulted for missing parameter semantics when none exist.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 offers absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools that might handle video-related operations (e.g., 'searchvideolist', 'recommend', 'list'), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or differentiation. This represents a complete lack of usage guidance.

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