list_processed_videos

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

The description adds the behavioral condition 'processed and available to query', which is useful context. There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden, but it doesn't disclose details like pagination, ordering, or access requirements. The output schema may cover return structure, so this is adequate but not rich.

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 short sentence (10 words) that is front-loaded with the main action and resource. There is no unnecessary repetition or filler.

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, zero-parameter list operation with an output schema, the description fully states what the tool lists and the selection criterion. It doesn't mention edge cases or require excessive detail; the output schema handles return value descriptions.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to convey. The schema coverage is trivially 100%, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 action ('List') and resource ('videos') with a specific qualifier ('processed and available to query'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_rejected_detections and list_alerts.

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 a usage context: use when you need a list of processed videos that can be queried. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like search_timeline or list_alerts, nor any exclusions.

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