shorts_sequence

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 mentions quota cost (2 units, with potential +1 for cache bypass), which is useful operational context. However, it doesn't describe what 'Shorts sequence' means, what data is returned, whether this is a read-only operation, or any error conditions. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient behavioral transparency.

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 extremely concise at just two sentences with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose statement followed by important operational information about quota cost. Every sentence earns its place, making this highly efficient.

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 inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'Shorts sequence' means, what data structure is returned, or how this tool differs from related shorts tools. The quota cost information is helpful but doesn't compensate for the lack of fundamental context about the tool's purpose and behavior.

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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. It mentions quota cost implications for the X-CACHEBYPASS parameter, but this is behavioral rather than semantic. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 'Get Shorts sequence' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'shorts_sequence' without providing meaningful context about what a 'Shorts sequence' actually is or what specific action the tool performs. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'shorts_details' or 'channel_shorts' in any meaningful way.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions 'Quota cost is 2 units,' this doesn't help an agent decide between this tool and related tools like 'shorts_details' or 'channel_shorts.' There's no context about what problem this tool solves or when it's the appropriate choice.

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