channel_videos

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 Videos' reveals nothing about whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions are needed, whether it's paginated, rate-limited, or has side effects. The description fails to provide any behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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?

While technically concise with just two words, this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to communicate essential information and doesn't use its limited space effectively. Every word should earn its place, but 'Channel Videos' provides minimal value beyond the tool name itself.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, or any behavioral characteristics. Given the complexity implied by multiple parameters and sibling tools, this minimal description fails to provide necessary context.

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 all 5 parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 Videos' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without specifying what action it performs. It doesn't indicate whether this tool lists, retrieves, searches, or manages channel videos, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'channel_details', 'playlist_videos', or 'video_details'.

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 absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools related to channels and videos (e.g., 'channel_details', 'playlist_videos', 'video_details'), there's no indication of this tool's specific use case, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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