video_related_contents

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, but it offers zero information about what the tool does, how it behaves, what it returns, or any operational characteristics. The description fails to disclose even basic behavioral traits like whether this is a read operation, what kind of content it retrieves, or any constraints.

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 only three words, this is an example of harmful under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to communicate essential information, making it inefficient for the agent's understanding. Every word should earn its place, but here the words fail to convey meaningful content.

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 of a video-related tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what 'related contents' means, or how it differs from other video tools. The agent would be unable to use this tool effectively based on the provided description.

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 four parameters with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage, relationships, or semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation solely from the schema, with no value added by the description.

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 'Video Related Contents' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without specifying what action it performs or what resource it operates on. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like video_details, video_comments, or video_streaming_data, leaving the agent with no understanding of what this tool actually does.

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 sibling tools like video_details, video_comments, and video_streaming_data available, the agent has no indication of what specific video-related content this tool retrieves or in what context it should be preferred over other video tools.

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