Check which cooking videos have already been watched, ordered newest first, including length and searchable transcript lines, to decide quickly whether rewatching is needed.
List every video crv has already watched, newest first, with how long it was and how many searchable lines it produced. Cheap way to check whether a video needs watching again before spending time on it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose useful traits: read-only listing, newest-first ordering, the fields returned (duration, count of searchable lines), and a cost profile ("cheap"). It does not mention pagination, result limits, or whether transcripts are included.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with no filler. "How many searchable lines it produced" is slightly opaque phrasing but still earns its place by telling the agent what it gets back.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema list tool the description covers purpose, ordering, payload contents and cost, which is most of what an agent needs to decide to call it. Limits on result size and whether transcripts come back are the remaining gaps.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description instead spends its words on scope and return contents, which is the right allocation.
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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (every video already watched) plus scope, ordering (newest first) and returned fields. The clause about checking whether a video needs watching again implicitly distinguishes it from watch_video without ambiguity.
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?
"Cheap way to check whether a video needs watching again before spending time on it" gives a concrete triggering condition and a cost-based rationale versus the heavier watch_video path. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tool or stating when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.