cricinfo_videos

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: results are a 'bounded snapshot' and 'media files are not downloaded by the endpoint,' which clarifies the tool returns metadata only. However, it omits other relevant behaviors such as ordering, pagination, or whether any implicit rate limits apply to the snapshot.

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 two sentences with no redundant filler. The core action is front-loaded ('Get Cricinfo videos'), and the subsequent sentences each add meaningful value: the scope of what is returned and the key non-behavior (no media download).

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 simple, read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete for invoking the tool. It conveys the source (public video hub), the result type (video metadata), and an important limitation (no media download). However, without an output schema, it does not detail the actual metadata fields or result structure, leaving some ambiguity for an agent interpreting the response.

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?

The only parameter, 'limit', is already fully described in the input schema (maximum 1 to 100), and schema description coverage is 100%. The main description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('Get Cricinfo videos') and goes further by specifying that it returns a bounded snapshot of the video hub, including curated, trending, and genre-associated metadata. This distinguishes it from other cricinfo_* tools by topic, but it does not explicitly name any sibling for differentiation.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving Cricinfo video metadata, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like cricinfo_photos or cricinfo_news, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer usage purely from the stated purpose.

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