page_videos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description reveals this is a read operation ('Get'), but provides no information about authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what format the videos are returned in. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves the agent with insufficient behavioral understanding.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that both add value. The first states the purpose, the second provides a critical warning. There's no wasted language, though the ALL-CAPS emphasis could be considered slightly excessive stylistically.

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 complexity of video retrieval operations and the lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'videos' means in this context (metadata, URLs, thumbnails?), how results are structured, whether there are limitations on what videos can be accessed, or any error conditions. For a tool in a crowded namespace with no structured support, this leaves too many questions unanswered.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by clarifying that the tool operates on 'page delegate id' and specifically warns against using 'page id', which is helpful semantic context even though no formal parameters exist in the schema.

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 states the tool's purpose ('Get page videos by page delegate id'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its many sibling tools (like 'page_reels', 'pages_photos', or 'search_video'), leaving the agent to guess when this specific video-fetching operation is appropriate versus alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it warns 'YOU NEED TO USE DELEGATE ID, NOT PAGE ID', this is a parameter usage note rather than contextual guidance about when this tool is appropriate. With 30+ sibling tools including other video-related ones, the absence of when/when-not instructions is a significant gap.

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