list_videos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about ordering, pagination behavior, permissions, or what counts as "ingested" versus pending/failed jobs. The word "已攝取" is the only behavioral hint, and an output schema covers return values, but key traits such as result ordering and default page size remain unstated.

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?

One short front-loaded sentence with zero waste, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. There is room for a clause on scope and the limit parameter without bloat.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but for a listing tool in a family containing get_video, ingest_video, and analyze_video, the description should at least say what the listing covers and how results are bounded. The Chinese-only text in an otherwise English toolset is also a discoverability cost.

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 0% and the description says nothing about the single `limit` parameter, not even its default of 20 or whether it truncates the result set. Since the schema supplies only a name and a type, the description should have compensated and does not.

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 single sentence states a clear verb+resource (list ingested videos) and the qualifier "已攝取" (ingested) implies a scope narrower than all videos. It offers no differentiation from siblings such as get_video, list_trend_top, or ingest_video, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which listing tool to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives like get_video for a single item. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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