list_brain_videos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add value by stating 'Never contacts YouTube', which is a meaningful constraint. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects, or other behavioral traits, so disclosure is only partial.

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, consisting of two short sentences. Both sentences contribute meaning: the first states the operation and target, the second adds a key constraint. No filler or redundancy.

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 is simple (one required param, output schema present), and the description adequately describes what the tool lists and that it doesn't contact YouTube. However, it lacks usage context and does not clarify what 'selected' means or how this relates to the brain_id parameter, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 provides almost no parameter detail. 'Page through' hints at limit/offset, and 'selected videos' may imply brain_id selection, but the description does not clearly map each parameter or explain the required brain_id semantics.

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 uses the specific verb 'Page through' and clearly identifies the resource as 'selected videos and outcomes', distinguishing it from siblings like search_brain and get_video_transcript. The additional 'Never contacts YouTube' clarifies that this is a local listing operation, not an external API call.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus search_brain or get_video_transcript. It implies a listing use case but does not state exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the name and siblings.

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