afl_content_video_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It includes the return format (pageInfo, content array) which gives some transparency about output. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, any authentication needs, or pacing/rate limits. The pagination is implied but not explained.

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 concise with only two sentences: one for purpose and one for return format. It avoids fluff and is easy to read. However, it could be slightly improved by adding a brief note about parameters without becoming verbose.

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 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides the return format but fails to explain how to use the parameters for filtering or pagination. The tool's complexity is moderate, and the description lacks completeness in guiding the agent on parameter usage and behavioral nuance.

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 6 parameters with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not mention any parameters or their semantics, leaving all parameters unexplained. This is a critical gap because the agent cannot know how to use tagNames, references, or expressions without additional context.

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 states the verb 'List', the resource 'video content', and explicitly lists subtypes (highlights, replays, press conferences). It distinguishes from sibling tools like afl_content_photo_list (photos) and afl_content_text_list (text). This provides specific and clear purpose.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this list tool versus the get tool (afl_content_video_get), nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for using parameters. For a list tool, guidance on filtering or pagination would be helpful.

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