YouTube Media Downloader

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that unavailable videos won't be listed and thumbnails won't be blurred by age safety, adding useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't cover other potential traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'pagination scraping' entails operationally, leaving gaps for a tool with pagination and language parameters.

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 concise with three sentences that each add value: stating the core function, pagination support, and thumbnail behavior. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the second sentence about pagination could be integrated more smoothly, and it lacks structural markers like bullet points for clarity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic context but is incomplete. It covers what the tool does and some behavioral aspects, but misses details on return values, error cases, or full usage scenarios. For a tool with pagination and language parameters, more guidance on output structure or limitations would enhance completeness.

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 already documents all three parameters (playlistId, lang, nextToken) with examples and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how 'nextToken' interacts with 'playlistId' or the implications of 'pagination scraping'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 lists videos from a YouTube playlist, specifying 'available' videos and mentioning unavailable ones won't be listed. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on playlist videos rather than channel details, posts, or searches. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_channel_videosshortslive' or 'list_items_with_next_token' in terms of scope.

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 implies usage for retrieving playlist videos with pagination and language support, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_channel_videosshortslive' or 'get_playlist_details'. It mentions 'pagination scraping is supported', which hints at handling large datasets, but lacks clear exclusions or comparative guidance with sibling tools.

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