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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes pagination behavior ('Pagination scraping is supported') and clarifies the relationship between videoId and nextToken parameters. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, while the second provides crucial usage guidance. There's zero wasted text and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 paginated list tool with no output schema, the description provides good context about the pagination workflow and parameter relationships. However, it doesn't describe the return format or structure of the related videos/playlists, which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema.

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 thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema - it only implies the pagination relationship between videoId and nextToken. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does 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's purpose with specific verbs ('lists related videos and playlists') and identifies the resource ('YouTube video'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_video_details' by focusing on related content rather than video metadata.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It recommends getting the first page via 'Video > Get Video Details' and then using this tool for subsequent pages, creating a clear workflow distinction from sibling tools.

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