youtube_playlist_get

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavior about returning either metadata or a signed page of playlist items, but does not clarify pagination behavior, response shape, or any special requirements around the 'signed page' concept.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words and front-loads the core purpose. Minor ambiguity around 'signed page' prevents a perfect score, but the overall structure is 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return behavior; it does broadly say what the tool returns. However, it does not describe the response format, cursor usage, or how include_items changes the result, leaving some gaps for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only hints at include_items through the metadata-versus-items distinction and does not explain the playlist identifier, cursor, or limit semantics. This is insufficient for four parameters.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves playlist data, either metadata or a page of playlist items. The playlist resource orientation distinguishes it from sibling tools for videos, channels, and search, though the phrase 'one signed page' is slightly ambiguous.

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?

Usage context is implied through the resource name and sibling tool names: use this when you need playlist metadata or items rather than video/channel/search data. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or when to set include_items versus use pagination.

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