YouTube Media Downloader

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. It adds some context: 'Pagination scraping is supported' indicates handling of large data sets and the use of 'nextToken' for pagination. However, it fails to disclose critical traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotations and multiple parameters, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 sized with two sentences that convey key information: the main purpose and pagination support. It is front-loaded with the core functionality, and there is no wasted text. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating usage notes, but it remains efficient and clear.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and pagination but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., read-only status, error handling), output format, and usage guidelines. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful for an AI agent, but it falls short.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain 'channelId' formats or 'type' options in more detail). With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract from the schema's 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 tool's purpose: 'lists playlists, releases or podcasts of a YouTube channel.' It specifies the verb ('lists') and resource ('playlists, releases or podcasts of a YouTube channel'), which is clear and specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_channel_videosshortslive' or 'list_playlist_videos', which list different content types, so it lacks sibling differentiation for a perfect score.

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. It mentions 'Pagination scraping is supported,' which hints at usage for large datasets, but does not specify contexts, exclusions, or compare to sibling tools like 'list_channel_posts_pollvideoimage' or 'search_for_channels.' Without explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, it offers minimal usage guidance.

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