list_channel_videos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds that the tool accepts a channel handle, ID, or URL, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention other behaviors such as result ordering (beyond 'recent'), pagination, rate limits, or error handling. For a read-only listing tool, this is acceptable but not fully transparent.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action ('List recent videos'), and every phrase earns its place. It avoids unnecessary detail, making it easy for an agent to quickly parse the tool's purpose.

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 simple listing tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It specifies the action, the resource, and accepted input formats. It could optionally mention the default limit or suggest using sibling tools for playlists, but these are not critical for using the tool correctly.

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 100%: both parameters (channel and limit) are described in the input schema. The description repeats the channel format info already present in the schema and adds no new meaning for the limit parameter. Since the schema already provides full parameter semantics, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'recent videos for a YouTube channel', making the tool's function immediately obvious. It also specifies the three accepted input formats (handle, ID, or URL), which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like list_playlist_videos (playlists vs channels) and search_videos (general search vs channel-specific listing).

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 implies usage: if you need recent videos from a specific channel, this is the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives (e.g., list_playlist_videos for playlists, search_videos for broader search) or provide any exclusion criteria. The guidance is not misleading, but it's only implied, not stated.

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