runsheet_list_local_videos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does establish the read-only safety profile ('Reads nothing except file metadata'). However, it says nothing about behavior on a nonexistent path, permission requirements, or result size for large/recursive folders.

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 tight sentences: the first delivers purpose and return shape, the second delivers usage and the read-only guarantee. No filler, and the key scope constraint ('THIS machine') is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by naming the returned fields (size, duration, vertical/landscape) plus the thumbnail-spotting benefit. Combined with full schema coverage on the two inputs, this is nearly complete, only missing error/edge-case behavior.

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%, and the folder and recursive parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about path formats or what 'recursive' changes in the output, so baseline 3 applies.

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) plus resource (video files in a folder) and scopes it to 'THIS machine', which cleanly separates it from remote-library siblings like runsheet_get_library. It also enumerates the returned attributes (size, duration, orientation), so an agent knows exactly what it gets.

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?

Explicitly positions the tool in a workflow: 'Use this before runsheet_upload_video' and notes the thumbnail-matching use case. That is clear situational context with a named sibling, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name the alternative for remote files.

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