channel_playlists

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. 'Channel Playlists' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify whether it lists, searches, or manages playlists, nor does it describe output format, pagination (though 'cursor' in schema hints at it), rate limits, or authentication needs. The description adds minimal value beyond the name, leaving key behavioral traits undocumented.

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 overly concise to the point of under-specification—it's just two words that restate the name. While brief, it fails to front-load essential information like the tool's action or purpose. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the 'sentence' adds no value, making it inefficient rather than appropriately concise.

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 doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to use parameters like 'filter' or 'cursor', or differentiate it from siblings. With no output schema and minimal description, users lack context for effective tool invocation, making this inadequate for a multi-parameter tool.

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 schema itself. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain how 'id', 'filter', or other parameters interact or provide usage examples. 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 'Channel Playlists' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what action the tool performs (e.g., 'retrieve', 'list', 'fetch') or clarify what resource it operates on beyond the obvious. While it mentions 'playlists', it fails to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'playlist_details' or 'playlist_videos' that also deal with playlists.

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 doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'channel_details' or 'playlist_details' that might handle related functionality. Users are left to infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient.

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