yt_analyze_channel

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

The description discloses key behaviors: it downloads transcripts, computes specific metrics, returns structured JSON, and caches results. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it adequately covers the main operations. It does not mention potential side effects, authentication, or rate limits, but for a read-only analysis tool, the transparency is sufficient.

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 three sentences long, immediately stating the core purpose and actions in the first sentence. It efficiently lists metrics, output format, and caching behavior without extraneous details. Every sentence adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides a reasonable overview of what it does and what it returns, including specific metric names. It could be improved by describing the JSON structure or mentioning that results are cached for later retrieval via yt_get_analysis, but for a moderate-complexity tool, it is fairly complete.

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?

All three parameters (channel, limit, niche) are fully described in the input schema with types, defaults, and notes. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description's lack of extra parameter details is acceptable, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Analyze a YouTube channel: download transcripts and compute quantitative metrics (WPM, profanity, humor taxonomy, rhetoric fingerprint, title formula).' It uses a specific verb-adverb-resource structure and lists concrete outputs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like yt_compare_creators (comparison) and yt_get_analysis (retrieve existing analysis).

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 mentions 'Results are cached for use in comparisons,' implying that the analysis can be reused by yt_compare_creators. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. retrieving an existing analysis via yt_get_analysis, nor does it provide any contraindications or prerequisite knowledge. The guidance is implied but not explicit enough for an agent to make optimal decisions.

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