ytptube_inspect_task_url

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by specifying the exact endpoint (/api/tasks/inspect) and the scope (task handler and items). It reinforces the non-mutating behavior without contradicting annotations, though it does not disclose details about response shape or potential errors.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Preview the task handler and items for a URL') and adds a key constraint ('never queues downloads'). Every word earns its place; no fluff 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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides minimal context: it explains the overall purpose and the no-queueing guarantee but omits parameter semantics and return value details. Annotations fill the safety profile, but the 0% schema coverage means the description fails to fully compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 does not explain any parameters beyond the URL. Preset, handler, and static_only are left completely undocumented, leaving the agent with no guidance on how to use them. The description's mention of 'a URL' only covers the required url parameter.

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 function: 'Preview the task handler and items for a URL.' This is a specific verb (preview) and resource (task handler/items). It also differentiates from siblings by noting it calls /api/tasks/inspect and never queues downloads, distinguishing it from tools like add_downloads or create_tasks.

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 provides clear usage context by stating 'this only calls /api/tasks/inspect and never queues downloads,' implying it is for safe, side-effect-free inspection. This acts as a when-not-to-use guide (not for queueing), but does not explicitly name alternative tools like add_downloads or inspect_url, so it stops short of full 5.

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