yt-analysis-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the action ('extract frames') and context for timestamps, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, file output behavior (e.g., format, naming), or error handling. It adds some value with the timestamp context but misses key operational aspects.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it highly efficient 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters and mutation-like behavior (extracting frames implies file creation). It covers purpose and usage well but lacks details on output format, error cases, or side effects, leaving gaps in operational context.

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 schema already fully documents all parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain timestamp precision or URL validation). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Extract frames from a YouTube video') and resource ('YouTube video'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'extract_screenshots' (which might extract continuous screenshots) and 'get_video_timestamps' (which provides timestamps rather than frames). The verb 'extract' is precise and the scope is well-defined.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('when you already know the exact timestamps you want') and provides examples of alternative sources ('e.g., from get_video_timestamps or video summary'), clearly differentiating it from tools that might infer or generate timestamps. This gives clear context for selection among siblings.

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