find_dead_videos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It defines 'dead' as deleted/private/blocked and notes the all-playlists scope, which adds transparency. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires network/auth, or any other side effects.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without redundancy.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to explain the meaning of db_path, any prerequisites (like authentication), or potential performance implications of scanning all playlists. The minimal description is adequate for a simple tool but not complete given the optional parameter and the breadth of 'all playlists'.

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 0%, and the description makes no mention of the db_path parameter. The optional parameter's purpose and default behavior remain completely unexplained, so the description adds no value in this dimension.

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 uses the specific verb 'Find' and clarifies the resource as 'deleted, private, or blocked videos' with the scope 'across all playlists'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_duplicates and remove_dead_videos.

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 usage for identifying dead videos but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like find_duplicates or remove_dead_videos. No exclusions are mentioned, so it relies on the name and sibling context.

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