ytptube_get_history_item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description only repeats the read-only nature without adding any behavioral context such as return behavior, error handling, or side effects, providing no additional value beyond the annotations.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Read') and includes the essential resource and parameter reference. No wasted words, perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 with one parameter and strong annotations, but the absence of an output schema and any mention of return value or error conditions leaves ambiguity. Agents may not know whether the tool returns the full item or just a confirmation, limiting completeness.

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?

The description confirms that the 'id' parameter is the ID of a queue or history item, adding minimal semantics beyond the schema's bare type definition. With 0% schema description coverage, this is somewhat helpful but does not fully compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 'Read' and identifies the resource as 'one queue or history item' accessed 'by ID'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list/retry tools like ytptube_list_history or ytptube_retry_history_item.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention selection criteria, prerequisites, or contexts where other tools would be more appropriate, leaving agents to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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