twitch_videos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the data is public, originates from Twitch's GraphQL API, is scoped to past broadcasts, and is ranked by view count. This is more behaviorally transparent than a minimal statement, though it omits factors like pagination, rate limits, or explicit output ordering (e.g., descending).

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 three short sentences that front-load the primary purpose. It briefly repeats 'videos (VODs)' and has a little redundancy, but overall the content is tight and no words are wasted on irrelevant details.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description compensates by listing the return field values (title, view count, length, publish date, game) and the ranking behavior. It does not describe response envelope, error conditions, or pagination, but those are not critical for this lightweight read-only use case.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage for both 'login' and 'limit', so the schema already documents the parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Get a Twitch channel's videos (VODs).' It also narrows the scope to 'past-broadcast videos' to distinguish the tool from adjacent concepts like streams or clips. However, it does not name any sibling tool explicitly, so it misses the strongest form of 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's context of use — when a user needs a channel's past-broadcast VODs — but it does not give explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It also doesn't mention alternatives such as twitch_streams, twitch_clips, or twitch_search. The usage signal is present but implicit rather than direct.

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