list_my_videos

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds valuable context: ~3 unit quota cost, authorized-channel scoping, newest-first ordering, and a read-only retrieval purpose. It does not explicitly mention pagination or read-only status, but the core behavior is clear and useful.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler: the primary behavior is first, followed by quota cost and the agent-relevant usage note. 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 simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers scope, ordering, cost, and the main use case. It could be slightly stronger with explicit alternatives or a mention of max_results, but it is otherwise sufficient.

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 never mentions max_results. The single parameter is optional with a self-explanatory title and default, so invocation risk is low, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema description.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List recent uploads on the authorized channel, newest first.' It clearly defines scope and ordering, and it is easy to distinguish from the mutation-focused siblings like upload_video and update_video.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this to find the video_id the other tools need,' which tells an agent when this tool is the right entry point. It does not name specific sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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