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. It mentions 'Pagination scraping is supported,' which adds some behavioral context (handling multiple pages of data). However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, fields). For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 very concise—two sentences that directly state the tool's function and a key feature (pagination). It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 lacks information on output format, error conditions, usage examples, and how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool that lists content with pagination and multiple parameters, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 all 5 parameters. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 videos, shorts or live streams of a YouTube channel.' It specifies the resource (YouTube channel content) and the action (list), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'list_channel_playlistsreleasespodcasts' or 'list_playlist_videos', which handle different content types or sources.

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 scenarios, prerequisites, or compare it to siblings like 'search_for_channel_videos_and_playlists' or 'list_items_with_next_token' for similar functionality.

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