research_youtube

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies an asynchronous process ('Queue' and 'Midos will transcribe') but does not clarify whether the tool is fire-and-forget, how to retrieve results, or any limitations. Important behavioral traits are missing.

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 extremely concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by a brief parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or verbose language.

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 the tool has 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is partially complete. It explains the tool's purpose and parameters but lacks details on behavior (asynchronous nature, result retrieval) and error handling. The output schema exists but is not referenced, which is acceptable if the output schema is self-explanatory.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It defines 'url' as 'YouTube URL to research' and 'priority' with possible values 'high', 'normal', 'low', which adds some semantics beyond the schema's type definitions. However, it does not explain the effect of priority or any constraints on the URL.

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: 'Queue a YouTube video for research. Midos will transcribe and extract insights.' It provides a specific verb ('Queue') and resource ('YouTube video'), and distinguishes from sibling tools which are unrelated system utilities.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states the action without context on appropriate usage scenarios.

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