list_video_operations

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It clearly states it runs in the Kuudo deployment (not here), reads only the local operation store, and makes no Google call. The phrase 'reads only' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. This provides sufficient context about execution environment and side-effect profile, though it does not mention authorization or error behavior.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The most important facts (catalog entry, local execution, ordering, alternative tool) are front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, and the description is appropriately concise for a simple list operation.

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, so the description must hint at return contents. It mentions the recovery_id and its use with get_video_status, which implies the output includes recovery identifiers. It also states ordering and filtering options indirectly via the schema. While it does not fully enumerate all returned fields, it covers the essential usage context for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, so the parameters (limit and status) are fully documented in the schema itself. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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'), resource ('video operations'), and scope ('submitted with this key'), and adds ordering ('newest first'). It differentiates from the sibling get_video_status by explicitly pointing to that tool for resuming/collecting via recovery_id. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Provides explicit direction to use get_video_status with a recovery_id for resuming/collecting, which is a clear alternative. It also notes the tool reads only the local operation store and makes no Google call, implying it is for local operations only. It does not exhaustively contrast with all siblings, but the key alternative is addressed.

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