YouTube Media Downloader

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the operation is a fetch (implying read-only), but doesn't cover authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. The mention of 'endpoint' hints at an API call but lacks operational details crucial for an agent.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating functional scope from behavioral notes.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on authentication, rate limits, error responses, and the structure of returned details. The agent would struggle to use this effectively without guessing at behavioral aspects.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying 'playlistId' is required. It doesn't explain the purpose of 'videos' (empty in example) or clarify 'lang' beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 action ('fetches details') and resource ('YouTube playlist'), including the types of playlists covered (user created, album, radio). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_playlist_videos' by focusing on metadata rather than content listing. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_channel_details' or 'get_video_details_price_1_3' beyond the 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for playlist metadata, it doesn't specify when to choose this over 'list_playlist_videos' (for content) or 'search_for_playlists' (for discovery). There's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or integration with other tools.

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