panopto_videos

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return payload (metadata plus a watch URL), which is meaningful behavioral context, and the metadata-only nature implies a non-destructive read. However, it says nothing about permissions, authentication, empty-result behavior, or whether the watch URL is time-limited — real gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and the returned fields in a parenthetical. There is no filler, though the dense parenthetical of six fields reads more like a payload spec than a purpose statement; it still earns its place given the absence of an output schema.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers the essentials: what it fetches, for which course, and what fields come back — the field list usefully substitutes for the missing output schema. What is missing is usage routing against the substantial sibling set, which for this complexity is a modest but real gap.

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 100%: the single required 'course' parameter is documented in the schema with a format example (e.g. MCE412). The description says the recordings belong to the course but adds no further meaning about the parameter's accepted format or matching behavior. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already does the work.

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 names a specific resource — Panopto lecture recordings for a given course — and enumerates the exact fields returned (id, title, date, duration in minutes, subtitle availability, watch URL). That enumeration implicitly separates it from the sibling panopto_transcript, which returns transcript text rather than video metadata. It stops short of an explicit verb ('list'/'get') or a named sibling, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the alternatives in the sibling set (panopto_transcript, course_content, read_learn_page). Nothing states prerequisites, what happens when a course has no recordings, or whether transcripts require a separate call. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and field list.

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