list_local_videos

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, and the description adds behavioral detail: it scans VIDEO_PATH, applies defaults (sort_by=modified, order=desc, limit=50), and returns specific VideoFile fields. No contradiction with 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 well-structured with a summary line, use-case paragraph, parameter list, return type, and example workflow. Minor redundancy exists between the first and second sentences, but overall every section earns its place.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description specifies return fields (filename, size_bytes, modified_timestamp, file_type), defaults, and an end-to-end workflow. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results.

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 0%, but the description provides a full parameter section explaining all 5 params: pattern with glob examples, file_type enum values, sort_by options, order semantics, and limit default. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'List locally downloaded video files' and further scopes to the VIDEO_PATH directory. It clearly distinguishes from sibling list_videos by emphasizing 'locally downloaded' and referencing download_video.

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?

It states when to use: to discover files previously downloaded with download_video, and gives an example workflow chaining to view_media. It doesn't explicitly name list_videos as the alternative for non-local videos, but the local vs. remote distinction is implied.

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