list_videos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about whether results are paginated, ordered, filtered by ownership, whether it requires Drive auth/scopes, or what happens when folderId is omitted beyond the schema's 'default: all Drive'. For a zero-annotation tool this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient but arguably under-specified rather than deliberately concise.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, this is minimally adequate. The missing pieces are the differentiation from list_video_jobs and any note on result ordering or pagination, which an agent would need to use it confidently.

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 coverage is 100% — folderId is documented as the Drive folder ID with a default of all Drive — so the schema already does the explanatory work. The description adds no further meaning about folderId (e.g., whether it recurses into subfolders), so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list generated videos) plus a source system (Google Drive), which is clearer than the title alone. However, it does not distinguish itself from the close sibling list_video_jobs, which also enumerates videos but presumably from a job queue rather than Drive — an agent could easily pick the wrong one.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of any alternative. With siblings like list_video_jobs, get_video_status, and drive_list present, the description leaves the routing decision entirely to inference.

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