ytptube_list_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, giving the agent a safe read-only baseline. The description adds only 'paginated', which is already evident from the page and per_page parameters, so no additional behavioral context is disclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasteful wording. However, its brevity sacrifices useful information, so it is concise but somewhat under-specified.

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?

Without an output schema, the description does not clarify return values, pagination defaults, or the relationship to sibling tools. The tool has 5 parameters and no param descriptions, so the description leaves significant gaps for an agent to infer behavior.

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 parameter meanings beyond implying 'queue' and 'completed-history' for the type field. The other parameters (page, order, status, per_page) are left entirely undocumented, making it hard for an agent to use them correctly.

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 a list operation for queue or completed-history pages via the 'type' parameter. However, it does not differentiate from sibling list tools like ytptube_live_queue or ytptube_list_archive, which could also list queue-like data.

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 such as ytptube_live_queue or ytptube_get_history_item. The description only states what the tool does, not the context or selection criteria.

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