list_videos

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only states the result includes statistics. It does not reveal pagination through the cursor/limit parameters, ordering, or whether a valid account context is required, which is critical for a listing operation.

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, making it highly concise and easy to parse. However, its brevity comes at the cost of substance; it is efficient but under-specified, which keeps it from being excellent.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, and the description does not explain the return format, pagination behavior, or the scope of 'the account's videos'. This is inadequate for a listing tool with pagination parameters, as the agent cannot infer when all videos are returned versus a page.

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 description neither mentions limit nor cursor and provides no semantics for these parameters. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent without guidance on pagination or result size control.

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 identifies the resource ('the account's videos') and adds a distinguishing feature ('with their statistics'). However, it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb, relying on the tool name 'list_videos' to convey the action. This is sufficient to separate it from video_stats, which likely focuses on individual video statistics.

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 mention of when to choose this tool over siblings such as video_stats or post_status. The description provides no context for use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess.

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