bunny_list_video_libraries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is well covered. The description adds useful conceptual context by explaining that each library is an isolated container with its own player settings, encoding config, API keys, and DRM/watermark options, which helps the agent understand the domain without contradicting annotations.

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 wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence provides concise domain context that helps the agent understand what a video library is. Every sentence earns its place.

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 straightforward read-only list operation, the description combined with the schema and annotations is largely complete: it identifies the resource, scope, safety profile, and parameters. It does not describe the response structure, but there is no output schema and the lack is not critical for a simple listing tool.

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% description coverage and all four parameters (page, search, per_page, include_access_key) are already documented with clear semantics. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 states a specific action ('List all Bunny Stream video libraries in the account') with a clear resource and scope, and it distinguishes this from related video-library tools like bunny_get_video_library, bunny_create_video_library, and bunny_update_video_library. The additional detail about what a library contains further clarifies what this tool operates on.

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 clearly conveys that this tool is for listing all libraries in the account, which makes the primary use case obvious. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the contrast with get/create/update siblings is reasonably inferable from the word 'list'.

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