yt-studio-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action on a distinct resource; even related tools like comment management are clearly differentiated (list, reply, moderate, scan, delete, etc.).
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_videos, upload_video), but a few use noun_verb (e.g., banned_words_add, channel_report) or other patterns (health_check), causing minor inconsistency.
Tool Count2/5
With 51 tools, the server is extremely large for a typical MCP server; while many sub-domains are covered, the number is excessive and could be streamlined.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage of YouTube Studio functionality including video, playlist, comment, live stream, caption, analytics, giveaway, and channel management, with no obvious gaps.
Average 3.2/5 across 51 of 51 tools scored. Lowest: 2.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 24 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or error conditions. For a mutation tool, this is a critical omission.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, making it concise. However, it is too brief to be useful, sacrificing necessary information for brevity. It front-loads the core action but lacks depth.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return value, side effects, or required prior actions (e.g., must create broadcast/stream first). The agent cannot reliably use this tool based on the description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (broadcast_id, stream_id, dry_run). The mention of 'stream key' is vague and not aligned with the parameter name. The agent receives no help understanding the inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'bind' and the objects 'broadcast' and 'stream key', but it uses 'stream key' while the schema uses 'stream_id', causing slight ambiguity. Nonetheless, it distinguishes from sibling tools like create_broadcast and list_broadcasts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The single sentence offers no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether removal is permanent, case-sensitive, or requires permissions. No annotations exist to compensate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (one sentence), but lacks detail. While efficient, it sacrifices clarity and completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has one parameter and no output schema, yet description fails to provide expected behavior like return value, side effects, or error handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'words' parameter meaning or constraints beyond its type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action 'Remove words' and the resource 'banned list', distinguishing it from siblings like 'banned_words_add' and 'banned_words_list'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'banned_words_add' or 'banned_words_list'. No context about prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; the description only says 'delete' implying irreversible action. It does not disclose whether it's a soft delete, permission requirements, or behavior on invalid message IDs. The dry_run parameter is in schema but not explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short sentence with no waste, but it is too brief and lacks structure. It is minimally adequate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no output schema, no annotations, and two parameters, the description is incomplete. Missing expectations about return value, error handling, and prerequisites.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and description adds no parameter explanation. The dry_run boolean and message_id string have no semantic enrichment beyond their names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'delete' and the resource 'live chat message'. It is specific but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'ban_chat_user' or 'mark_spam' which may also affect messages.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, effects, or exclusions compared to similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It merely states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting, or rate limits. This is insufficient for a tool that likely returns a list of items.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (3 words), but it sacrifices clarity and completeness. Conciseness is not valuable when it omits essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the return format is handled, but the description still lacks context about pagination, sorting, or what fields are returned. It is insufficient for a listing tool with two parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not add any meaning to the parameters (playlist_id and limit). The agent must infer their purpose from names alone, which is inadequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List videos in a playlist', which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like add_to_playlist or remove_from_playlist, leaving the exact scope ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_playlists or add_to_playlist. The description lacks context for the AI agent to make an informed choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only states the basic action, leaving out important behavioral traits such as write semantics, irreversibility, required permissions, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, but at the expense of completeness. It omits necessary details for effective use.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters (including a non-obvious dry_run), no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide enough information for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no information about parameters. The purpose of 'dry_run', the format of 'chat_id', or constraints on 'text' are left entirely to the parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action ('Post a message') and resource ('to a live chat'), and specifies the sender context ('as the channel'). However, it does not differentiate from similar tools like 'post_winner_reply' or 'reply_to_comment'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, restrictions, or appropriate contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is minimal and does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it overwrites existing captions, asynchronous behavior, error handling, or side effects. No annotations are provided to compensate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is concise but fails to include essential information. It is under-specified rather than appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 5 parameters, zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It lacks return value info, parameter semantics, and error handling context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the 5 parameters (name, dry_run, language, video_id, file_path). The description adds no value beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('upload') and resource ('caption track') and specifies file formats (SRT/VTT), which distinguishes it from siblings like download_caption.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The description does not mention required permissions or file size limits.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists the status filter but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination (via 'limit'), ordering, or whether the result list is limited or paginated. Minimal behavioral insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (two sentences) and front-loads the purpose. However, it is too brief to be fully informative, sacrificing important details for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not mention pagination behavior, result structure, or how to handle empty results. The existence of an output schema does not fully compensate for missing behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'status' parameter with allowed values but does not describe the 'limit' parameter at all. Only partial compensation for one parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List live broadcasts' which clearly indicates the verb and resource. The mention of status filter adds specificity. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_streams'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'list_streams' or when not to use it. The context signals show many sibling tools, but the description provides no comparative advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (list) without any details about side effects (none expected), authorization needs, rate limits, or data freshness. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a single sentence of four words. This is efficient but arguably too terse, missing details that could improve clarity. It earns its place by stating the core purpose without fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists (not shown), the description fails to mention that it returns a list, whether pagination is supported, or how to retrieve all playlists. For a simple list operation, this leaves significant gaps in the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter (limit) with no description, and the schema coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention the limit parameter at all, so it adds no value beyond the schema. The agent cannot infer that limit controls pagination or default behavior from the description alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List the channel's playlists' clearly states the verb (List) and resource (playlists), and it distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_playlist or delete_playlist. However, it does not specify which channel or any filtering context, so it's not maximally specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use list_playlists vs. list_playlist_items or create_playlist. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions ordering and return content but omits pagination, authentication, rate limits, or what 'basic stats' includes. Insufficient for a mutation-free list tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and resource. Could be improved with a structured list but remains efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, return values are covered, but the description lacks information about pagination, scope (authenticated user's channel), and whether results are limited. A list tool should mention these.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the 'limit' parameter. While the parameter is simple, the description fails to add meaning beyond the schema field name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'list' and resource 'channel's uploaded videos' and includes ordering ('newest first') and content ('basic stats'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like top_videos or list_broadcasts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_broadcasts or get_video. The description does not provide context for selection among the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Flag a comment as spam' without indicating consequences (e.g., does it hide the comment? Is it reversible?). This is insufficient disclosure for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, it is too brief and lacks any structure or additional context. It is minimally acceptable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has two parameters (one required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, side effects, or the meaning of dry_run.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about parameters (comment_id, dry_run). The schema provides basic titles but no descriptions. The tool's behavior with dry_run is not explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Flag a comment as spam.' It uses a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like moderate_comment or delete_comment, which could also affect comment state.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., delete_comment, moderate_comment). The description lacks context for usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It mentions 'as the channel' implying posting under channel name, but omits side effects (e.g., irreversible action, visibility, rate limits, or what happens if conditions aren't met). Lacks behavioral details beyond the basic write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and object. Conciseness is good, but the content is thin—could add a second sentence with critical details without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 3 parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify return value (e.g., success/error) and any conditions (e.g., comment must be winning). It lacks these details, making the tool's behavior incomplete for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions are absent (0% coverage). The description indirectly explains 'comment_id' and 'text' but does not elaborate on purpose or constraints. 'dry_run' is mentioned only by name and default; its effect (simulate without posting) is not described. Minimal addition over parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action (reply), target (winning comment), and role (as channel) with context (winner announcement/notification). However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'winner_announcement' or 'reply_to_comment', missing a chance to clarify when this specific tool is needed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. Prerequisites (e.g., comment must be winning, channel must be authenticated) or exclusions are absent, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only states the basic operation. It does not disclose the dry_run parameter's behavior, whether duplicate additions are allowed, or if the operation is idempotent. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence). It is front-loaded and efficient, but the brevity comes at the cost of missing important details like dry_run.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, error scenarios, behavior when position is null, or the effect of dry_run. A mutation tool requires more context for safe usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description only mentions 'video', 'playlist', and 'position', adding no meaning beyond the parameter names. The crucial 'dry_run' parameter is completely omitted, and no constraints or formats are described.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('add'), the resource ('video to a playlist'), and an optional capability ('optionally at a specific position'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'remove_from_playlist' and 'create_playlist'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or context such as required permissions or video existence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions temporary vs permanent but omits consequences (e.g., whether existing messages are removed), reversibility, and any side effects. Important context like 'this will prevent the user from sending messages but they can still view' is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, 14 words, immediately communicates core action and the key conditional. It is front-loaded and efficient, but could expand slightly without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It covers only the duration distinction and does not address parameter details, return values, or usage context. The agent lacks enough information to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains duration_seconds (determines temporary/permanent) but does not clarify chat_id, channel_id, or dry_run. dry_run's effect (e.g., whether it simulates without banning) is unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (ban a user) and resource (live chat), with a condition (temporary when duration_seconds given, else permanent). It is specific and goes beyond the tool name, but lacks explicit differentiation from sibling moderation tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_chat_message or mark_spam. Description does not mention prerequisites, such as required permissions or whether the user must be currently active.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states the action without disclosing effects (e.g., creates a new reply, may affect thread visibility), authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. The minimal description is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks necessary details. Every sentence earns its place, but the content is too sparse for a 3-parameter tool with no annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It omits return value, effect of dry_run, and how comment_id is obtained, making it inadequate for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about the parameters. 'text' and 'comment_id' are undefined, and 'dry_run' is not explained. The tool cannot be properly invoked without guessing parameter meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Reply to a comment as the channel' clearly states the verb (reply), the resource (comment), and the acting entity (channel). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_comment' or 'post_chat_message' by specifying the action and context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'moderate_comment' or 'scan_comments'. No prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses file type and size limits (JPG/PNG, <2MB), which is useful. However, it does not explain the effect of the 'dry_run' parameter, whether the operation overwrites an existing thumbnail, required permissions, or error conditions. Since there are no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure but falls short.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the key purpose. It is concise and avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured to include parameter details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits details on video_id format, dry_run behavior, output/return values, permissions, and error handling, making it insufficient for safe autonomous invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds file constraints to 'image_path', which the schema lacks (schema coverage is 0%). However, it provides no additional meaning for 'video_id' or 'dry_run' parameters. It partially compensates for the schema gaps but leaves important parameters undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (set a custom thumbnail) and specifies file constraints (JPG/PNG, <2MB). However, it does not explicitly mention that the thumbnail is for a video, though this is inferred from the parameter 'video_id'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'upload_video' and 'update_video' by focusing on thumbnail setting.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'upload_video' for video uploads), nor are there any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description lacks any behavioral disclosure such as read-only nature, rate limits, or pagination. Minimal information beyond the task.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no wasted words. Front-loaded with key purpose and date range format. Highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite an output schema existing, the description omits critical details about available metrics and dimensions, leaving the agent to infer from defaults. Incomplete for a tool with four parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It only mentions start/end and provides a date format hint, but ignores the metrics and dimensions parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as providing channel analytics over a date range, using 'Channel analytics' and specifying start/end dates. This distinguishes it from per-video tools like video_report, though not explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description simply states function without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions resumability and the privacy/publish_at relationship, but omits important behaviors such as overwrite policy, error handling, idempotency, or authentication requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. However, it sacrifices completeness; a slightly longer description with more parameter details would be better.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers only privacy and scheduling. It lacks information on return values, error scenarios, file constraints, and required permissions, making it highly incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only 2 out of 7 parameters (privacy and publish_at) receive any semantic explanation, and even those are brief. The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description should compensate, but it fails to explain tags, dry_run, file_path, title, or description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Upload' and the resource 'a video', and adds the important qualifier 'resumable'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'update_video' or 'delete_video'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites mentioned, and no mention of constraints like file size or format. The scheduling note is helpful but not sufficient for usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the operation is idempotent, how duplicates are handled, or if there are rate limits or authorization requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it could slightly expand on the resource (e.g., 'channel's banned list') without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given low complexity (1 simple parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is still incomplete. It does not mention the return value, success indicator, or any side effects, which an agent would need to confirm the operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only repeats the parameter name ('words') without adding meaning about format, constraints (e.g., max length, allowed characters), or whether phrases are case-sensitive.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add words/phrases to the banned list' clearly states the action (add) and the resource (words/phrases to the banned list). It is specific and distinguishes the tool from siblings like banned_words_remove and banned_words_list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to add vs remove or list). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only mentions scheduling and start time format, but fails to disclose that it creates a resource (write operation), auth needs, rate limits, or side effects like sending notifications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no filler. Every sentence adds value. Minimal but efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations. Description is severely incomplete: no return value explanation, no example usage, no guidance on optional parameters (dry_run, privacy). Leaves agent guessing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%. Description adds value only for start_time (RFC3339 format). Other 4 parameters (title, dry_run, privacy, description) get no semantic help beyond schema titles/defaults. Does not compensate for low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Schedule a live broadcast', which is a specific verb+resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_broadcasts or bind_broadcast.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., bind_broadcast). Agent must infer from name alone. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose read-only behavior, pagination, rate limits, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, efficient and to the point. However, there is room to add more context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, return values need not be described. But missing parameter details and behavioral traits make it minimally complete for a simple list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%; description does not explain the 'limit' parameter beyond its default value. No added meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (List), the resource (reusable stream keys), and includes 'health' as part of the result. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_broadcasts or list_videos.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions generating a code and recording it (mutation) but lacks details on code length, uniqueness, whether overwriting occurs, or if the audit path must exist. This is insufficient for safe operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core action and side effect.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify the nature of the verification code (e.g., length or format) or the expected format of the audit path. The agent lacks information to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the tool description does not explain the parameters 'audit_path' or 'winner_channel_id'. The names give hints, but no additional meaning is added beyond the schema structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool generates a short verification code for a winner and records it in an audit file. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'check_verification_reply' which verify codes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any prerequisites. The description implies it follows winner selection but does not explicitly state context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the effect (changing moderation status) but omits important traits such as reversibility, permissions required, or side effects. The dry_run parameter hints at testing, but its behavior is not explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at one sentence, which is good for quick reading. However, it sacrifices necessary detail, making it less useful despite its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain the role of each parameter, the effect of dry_run, or what response to expect, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all three parameters. It only adds meaning for the status parameter by listing its allowed values. The comment_id and dry_run parameters remain unexplained, which is insufficient given the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Set' and the resource 'moderation status', listing the three allowed values: published, heldForReview, rejected. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_comment and mark_spam, which handle different actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_comment or mark_spam. The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions the tool operates on the 'authorized channel', implying auth requirements, but does not specify side effects, rate limits, or what happens if the channel is unauthorized. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded. While it could potentially list the specific fields more explicitly, it is concise without being under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has zero parameters and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and mentions key outputs (profile, statistics, uploads playlist id). However, without an output schema, it should detail the return structure more thoroughly to avoid ambiguity about what 'statistics' includes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. It adds value by describing the return data (profile, statistics, uploads playlist id), which goes beyond the empty schema. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description meets it well.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a verb ('Get') and resource ('authorized channel's profile, statistics, and uploads playlist id'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'channel_report' or 'list_videos' by focusing on the channel's own data and including the uploads playlist id. However, it could be more specific about what 'profile' and 'statistics' include, which would enhance clarity further.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'channel_report' or 'get_video'. The description implicitly suggests it is used to retrieve channel info, but there is no explicit context for usage or exclusions like 'use channel_report for comprehensive analytics instead'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a key behavioral trait: videos are not deleted. However, without annotations, it omits other important details such as irreversibility, permission requirements, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, effectively communicating the core action and a critical caveat.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a delete tool with no output schema and an undocumented dry_run parameter, the description provides minimal guidance on behavior, return values, or error handling, leaving the agent with insufficient information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about the dry_run or playlist_id parameters, leaving the agent to infer usage from names only.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Delete' and resource 'playlist', and distinguishes itself from related tools like delete_video by explicitly noting that videos are not deleted.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as remove_from_playlist or delete_video. Usage context is only implied by the action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only indicates a read operation ('Get'), but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter retrieval with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on return format or edge cases, leaving some ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the video_id parameter at all, leaving its meaning and requirements completely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get full metadata and statistics for one video,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_videos (list multiple) and update_video (write operation).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_videos for multiple, update_video for modifications). The description lacks explicit context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions privacy options. It does not disclose that this is a write operation, potential side effects, or return behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—one sentence plus a short hint. It front-loads the purpose and wastes no words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the 4 parameters (1 required) and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or the effect of parameters like dry_run.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning for the privacy parameter by listing allowed values (public|unlisted|private), which the schema does not provide. However, other parameters like title, dry_run, and description lack any explanation. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb and resource: 'Create a playlist.' It also provides a hint about privacy options, distinguishing this tool from other playlist-related tools like delete_playlist or add_to_playlist.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare with similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or output format. The description only hints at input format (YYYY-MM-DD) but does not explain what the tool does beyond returning analytics. For a data retrieval tool, this is insufficient transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence, 8 words) and front-loaded with the key action. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices necessary detail. Every word earns its place, but the lack of elaboration on parameters or behavior prevents a higher score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and an output schema that is not described, the description is incomplete. It omits what 'analytics' includes, how to interpret results, and the role of the 'metrics' parameter. The output schema exists but is not referenced, leaving the agent without enough context to reliably use the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It only adds meaning for 'start' and 'end' by specifying the date format (YYYY-MM-DD). It does not explain 'video_id' or 'metrics', which is critical given the default and optional nature of 'metrics'. The description inadequately compensates for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Per-video analytics between start/end (YYYY-MM-DD)' clearly identifies the tool as providing analytics for a single video within a date range. The verb 'analytics' combined with 'per-video' distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'channel_report' (per-channel) and 'top_videos' (aggregate), making the purpose specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for per-video analytics with a date range, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions or references to other tools (e.g., channel_report). The purpose is clear enough to guide selection by inference, but explicit guidance is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral transparency. It states the tool fetches a comment and performs checks, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., if it marks something), error conditions, or the exact format of the verification code. Still, the core behavior is reasonably clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that conveys the tool's purpose efficiently. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy. It is appropriately short and to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value (e.g., boolean, object), error scenarios, or prerequisites like needing a verification code. The tool's role in a larger workflow is implied but not clarified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It names three parameters but only explains two implicitly: 'comment_id' (the comment to fetch) and 'winner_channel_id' (the winning channel). 'audit_path' is not described at all. The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it verifies a winner's reply by fetching a comment and checking author and verification code. The verb 'verify' and specific actions 'fetches' and 'checks' make the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also implies a context related to giveaway verification, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'draw_winners' or 'post_winner_reply'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., that a winner must be selected and a verification code generated) or any exclusions. The agent must infer the use case, which is insufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a destructive action (deletion) and adds the important behavioral constraint of 'own comments only'. However, with no annotations provided, it does not disclose other behaviors such as error responses, idempotency, or required permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and includes the key constraint. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the tool is simple, the description lacks parameter details, error handling, and output information. Contextual signals show no output schema and low schema coverage, so the description should compensate but does not. It only partially addresses the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not mention any parameters. The input schema has 'dry_run' and 'comment_id' with no descriptions (0% schema coverage). The description fails to explain the purpose of 'dry_run' or how 'comment_id' is used, leaving the agent without semantic guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete a comment') and the specific scope ('authored by the channel (own comments only)'). This distinguishes it from other comment-related tools like 'moderate_comment' which might handle others' comments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use (own comments) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. It mentions the ownership constraint but lacks guidance on scenarios like deleting others' comments (for which 'moderate_comment' might be used).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'list', implying a read operation, but does not clarify whether pagination, limits, or specific response formats apply, nor any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks context about usage prerequisites (e.g., video must exist) and any potential limitations, which would be helpful for a complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter video_id is self-explanatory from its name. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description could add context (e.g., 'the ID of the video whose captions to list'), but it does not. The parameter is clear enough for a basic list operation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List caption tracks on a video' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (caption tracks) with scope (on a video). It differentiates from siblings like upload_caption and download_caption by focusing on listing rather than creating or retrieving files.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the video needing to exist, or when listing is appropriate compared to other caption-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether only top-level threads are returned. This is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded and concise. Every word contributes to the core purpose and scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the three parameters and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on pagination, sorting, search behavior, output structure, and error conditions. An output schema exists but is not explained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains video_id's impact (channel-wide when omitted). It does not describe limit (default 100, meaning?) or search_terms (how they filter?). Minimal added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists comment threads, with a specific scope: per video or channel-wide when video_id is omitted. It uses a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes from sibling tools that deal with videos, broadcasts, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates when to use the tool (listing comments for a video or channel-wide) but does not mention exclusions or alternatives. Given many sibling tools for comment manipulation (scan_comments, moderate_comment), guidance is lacking.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description explicitly says 'Permanently delete' and 'Irreversible', which covers the critical behavioral trait for a destructive operation. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden; this disclosure is sufficient but could mention side effects (e.g., removal from playlists) or auth requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at two sentences, front-loading the core action and consequence. Could benefit from a brief note on parameters or use cases without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple destructive tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks guidance on parameter usage, prerequisites, and how this tool fits with siblings (e.g., dry_run testing or verifying video ID).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero schema description coverage; description adds no value for parameters (video_id and dry_run). dry_run's purpose (preview without deletion) is not explained, leaving ambiguity. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory but not explicitly detailed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool deletes a video permanently. Distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., update_video, upload_video) by specifying deletion action and irreversible nature.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., update_video or delete_playlist). Does not mention the dry_run parameter for safe testing or prerequisites like ownership.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description should disclose behavioral details. It states it returns top videos by views but does not mention sorting order (assumed descending), whether the result is snapshotted or live, performance implications, or if it requires any permissions. The description is vague about the actual behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 10 words, extremely concise. It front-loads the core action ('Top videos by views') and provides the date range constraint. Every word is necessary and there is no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description can omit return value details. However, it does not explain what 'top' means (e.g., descending views), how `limit` interacts with pagination, or edge cases (e.g., no videos in range). The description is adequate but leaves some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It clarifies the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) for start and end parameters. However, it does not explain the `limit` parameter beyond its default. The description adds value beyond the schema but is incomplete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as retrieving top videos sorted by views within a date range. The verb 'top' is implicit but understood, and the resource 'videos' is stated. It distinguishes from siblings like `list_videos` (which does not sort by views) and `get_video` (single video). However, it does not explicitly mention that results are limited (default 10).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need the most viewed videos in a period. No explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., if you need unfiltered list, use `list_videos`). Siblings exist but no alternatives mentioned. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-like verification but does not disclose side effects (e.g., does it trigger a credential refresh?) or rate limits. Ambiguous wording 'verify ... refresh' could mean it checks if refresh works, not that it performs refresh.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose with no redundant words. Perfectly front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, but omits return value or success/failure indicator. Could be improved by specifying what the tool returns (e.g., boolean) or next steps if verification fails.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100% trivially. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate as description does not need to compensate for missing param info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool verifies stored credentials refresh and channel reachability, providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools as this is the only health check function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites. Siblings include many specific operations, but no mention of using this before others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a key behavioral aspect—the API cannot pin comments—which adds value beyond the schema. However, it does not mention other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the action is reversible. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only partially addresses it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, with no fluff or redundancy. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds a critical limitation. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the dry_run parameter, return behavior, error scenarios, or prerequisites (e.g., must be channel owner). The tool's complexity is moderate, but the description leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters (text, dry_run, video_id). The agent must infer from names alone. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions, providing no guidance on expected format or behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (post a top-level comment) and the resource (video as the channel), using specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'top-level comment,' which implies it is not a reply, effectively differentiating from 'reply_to_comment'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is implied: when you want to post a comment as the channel. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and alternatives like 'reply_to_comment' are not mentioned. The note about pinning is a limitation but does not direct when to choose this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states 'Remove an item' but fails to disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens to the playlist. Minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and key parameter. No unnecessary words; every part contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the core removal action and source of the id. However, missing behavioral context and incomplete parameter explanation leave gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds context that the 'playlist_item_id' is from list results, which aids understanding. However, it does not explain the 'dry_run' parameter, leaving its purpose unclear despite its default value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Remove an item from a playlist' and specifies the required identifier 'by playlist-item id'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_to_playlist' and 'delete_playlist'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description hints that the id comes from 'list results', implying a prerequisite, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Download' indicates a non-destructive read operation, but no details on output format (SRT/VTT file contents), error conditions, or rate limits are given. It 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—one sentence plus format hint—with no wasted words. It delivers key information upfront.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple download tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action and format. However, it omits context like the typical workflow (e.g., using list_captions first) and the exact nature of the output (e.g., text content in SRT/VTT format). Functional but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It adds value by specifying format options ('fmt: srt|vtt'), which the schema lacks. However, it does not explain the required 'caption_id' parameter (e.g., where to obtain it). Partial compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool downloads a caption track's text, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_captions (which lists metadata) and upload_caption (which uploads). The format hint further clarifies the output.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when caption text is needed, but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites like obtaining a caption_id from list_captions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the output format and columns, and implies a read operation (export). It does not mention permissions or side effects, but for a simple export, the behavior is reasonably transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and output columns. It is front-loaded and concise, though could be slightly more structured with separate lines for details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and 2 parameters, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: it does not specify return values, error cases, or behavior when csv_path is null. For a simple tool, it is minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 parameters with 0% coverage in descriptions. The description does not explain what 'snapshot_path' or 'csv_path' mean, nor does it clarify optionality or defaults. Since schema coverage is low, the description should add meaning but fails to do so.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Export', the resource 'snapshot's entries', the format 'CSV', and lists the specific columns (channel_id, author, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like collect_entries by specifying the output format and purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for exporting entries to CSV for spreadsheets, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full weight. It states it audits 'every upload' but does not clarify scope (e.g., all videos in a channel, account-wide), auth requirements, side effects (read-only likely), or rate limits. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that gets straight to the point with no filler. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context. While it states what the tool does and reports, it omits details like output format, whether it modifies data, or prerequisites. Adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, and the description provides context for what the tool does beyond the empty schema. The description adds meaning by explaining the tool audits COPPA designations and reports two flags, which is useful given no inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Audit') and resource ('every upload's made-for-kids designation') and explicitly mentions the COPPA regulation. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on a niche audit task not covered by any other tool in the list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for checking COPPA compliance but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it (e.g., after uploads) or when not to use it. No alternative tools are mentioned, though none seem directly comparable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses determinism and audit trail, which are key behavioral traits beyond the basic action. No contradictions. However, does not mention permissions or error conditions, but acceptable given no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers core purpose and behavior (determinism, audit, distinctness), but no output description, no parameter elaboration, and no error handling given lack of output schema and annotations. Adequate but leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage; description does not individually explain parameters. Only implicit mapping: 'n' is number of winners, 'seed' is for determinism, 'snapshot_path' is the snapshot. Missing format or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Describes specific verb 'draw' with resource 'winners from a snapshot', includes key attributes (deterministic, distinct). Distinguishable from sibling tools like winner_announcement or collect_entries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives. The purpose is clear, but no guidance on when to avoid this tool vs other draw-related tools; relies on context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation (non-destructive) but does not disclose behaviors such as pagination, rate limits, or the effect of the 'limit' parameter. The presence of an output schema partially mitigates the lack of return format details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose with no extraneous text. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema present), the description covers the core purpose and parameter source but omits details about the 'limit' parameter and default behavior. It is adequate but has gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description only adds meaning for chat_id by noting its source. The 'limit' parameter is not explained (e.g., its default or behavior). The description does not compensate sufficiently for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Read' and the resource 'messages from a live chat'. It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like post_chat_message or delete_chat_message by specifying it's for reading.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a concrete usage hint: 'chat_id from list_broadcasts', guiding the agent to retrieve the required parameter from a sibling tool. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are given, but for a simple read tool this is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description clearly states the partial update behavior ('only supplied fields change; others are preserved'), which is the key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention authorization, rate limits, or error conditions like requiring the video to exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary verbiage. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains the core behavioral concept (partial update) but lacks context for specific parameters like 'dry_run' (testing behavior) and does not mention return values or side effects. Adequate for a simple update but incomplete given 7 parameters and no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no specific information about parameters beyond their names. The agent must infer meaning from names like 'dry_run' or 'privacy', but the description does not clarify formats, allowed values, or purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Update video metadata' and the resource 'video', with the key behavior 'Only supplied fields change; others are preserved'. This distinguishes it from siblings like upload_video (create) and delete_video (delete).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for updating video metadata but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., batch_update_descriptions for bulk updates) or when not to use it. Lacks exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description discloses that this tool only drafts text and does not post ('Review before posting'), indicating a read-only behavioral trait. It adds context beyond the schema by clarifying the tool's role as a drafting step, though it doesn't specify side effects or return format explicitly.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences, no redundant words, and front-loads the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value without fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides basic functionality (draft text from audit record) but omits details on optional parameters and return format. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps in understanding the full usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'audit_path' as the source from a draw's audit record, but does not clarify the purpose or format of 'contact' or 'claim_days' parameters. This partial coverage leaves significant ambiguity for two out of three parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Draft winner-announcement text' from a draw's audit record, specifying the verb (draft) and resource (winner-announcement text). It distinguishes from siblings like 'post_winner_reply' (which posts) and 'draw_winners' (which draws winners).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for drafting text before posting ('Review before posting') but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, leaving context implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It transparently notes it is a 'local estimate from the official cost table', adding context about accuracy and source. Lacks mention of read-only nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no filler. Front-loaded with the main result. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, so description should cover return format. It mentions 'quota units spent' but does not specify data type (number, string, object) or structure. Adequate for a simple informational tool but could be more precise.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has zero parameters, baseline 4. Description adds meaning beyond empty schema by explaining the tool returns quota units spent, which the schema does not convey.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it reports 'Quota units spent this session', a specific resource and verb. No sibling tool deals with quota, so it is well-distinguished.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Implicitly it's for checking quota, but no explicit usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool writes an auditable snapshot file and returns its hash (side effect), and describes the entry collection logic. However, it does not mention authorization needs, rate limits, or whether it modifies any data beyond the snapshot. Given the lack of annotations, the transparency is good but not exhaustive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, with the first sentence providing the core purpose and the second adding important details about the snapshot and return value. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (walking uploads, comments, deduplication, capping, file writing), the description covers the key aspects: time window, per-video per-commenter dedup, per-user cap, snapshot and hash. It is sufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's behavior, though it could benefit from mentioning constraints like API rate limits or pagination for large windows.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'start' and 'end' are RFC3339 timestamps (window) and that entries are 'capped per user' (relating to max_entries_per_user). However, it does not mention exclude_channel_ids or comment_limit_per_video, leaving some parameters unexplained. The description adds value for two parameters but not all.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'collect' and the resource 'giveaway entries', and explains the method: walking every upload's comments within a window, deduplicating per video per commenter, capping per user. This differentiates it from sibling tools like export_entries_csv and draw_winners, which have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for collecting giveaway entries from comments within a time window, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no exclusion guidance, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any side effects. For a tool that likely performs a read-only scan, this omission is a gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core action and output. Every part contributes meaning, with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context for the tool's purpose and expected output (list of videos with status and pin links). However, it could be slightly more explicit about the return format (e.g., list vs summary).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds no additional semantic info about them, which is acceptable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: cross-referencing uploads against question comments to identify which videos need a question and which have one posted (with links). It distinguishes from siblings like post_giveaway_question or scan_comments by specifying a status-checking purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly conveys when to use (after posting questions, to check status) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools makes it reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only analysis by listing output types (totals, trend, top videos). It does not mention authorization, rate limits, or side effects, but the behavioral implication is clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, parameters, output content, and usage hint. Every part earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite lacking an output schema and having 0% parameter schema coverage, the description covers the key outputs (totals, per-day trend, top videos) and the input format. It could elaborate on what 'totals' and 'trend' entail, but for a digest tool, it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'date window (YYYY-MM-DD)' and hints that 'end' might be yesterday ('run it the morning after'), adding context. However, it does not specify inclusivity or exclusivity of dates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool provides a channel performance digest for a date window, listing totals, per-day trend, and top videos. It distinguishes from siblings like 'channel_report' and 'top_videos' by focusing on a digest with specific content and timing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly suggests 'run it the morning after a stream', providing a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must bear full responsibility. It declares a read operation ('Show') with no side effects, but omits details like authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the list is paginated. Basic transparency is present but incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, concise sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without any wasted words or filler. Perfectly front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters, no output schema, and low complexity, the description sufficiently covers the tool's functionality. It tells what it does and connects it to scan_comments, making the context complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters (100% coverage by default), so the description adds no parameter information. Baseline is 4; the description correctly says nothing extraneous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Show' and identifies the resource as 'managed banned-word list used by scan_comments.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like banned_words_add and banned_words_remove by implying a read-only action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for viewing the list, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like banned_words_add or banned_words_remove. No 'when-not-to-use' or context for selection is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses quota usage per changed video (~51 units), that append mode skips videos already containing the text, and that footer mode adds a marker if missing. These behaviors are not obvious from the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, using bullet-style for modes and front-loading the overall purpose. Every sentence adds value without repetition or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations or output schema, the description covers the tool's behavior well: modes, scope, quota, and edge cases like missing markers. It does not explain return values or errors, but these are often implicit for batch operations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains mode, text, find, and video_ids (scope), but does not mention the dry_run parameter. Thus, one out of five parameters is undocumented, leaving a gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool updates descriptions across many videos, specifying three distinct modes (append, footer, replace) and scope (video_ids or all uploads). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_video (which likely updates a single video) and list_videos.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use each mode (e.g., footer for links/giveaway, append for adding text without duplication, replace for find/replace). It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the mode-specific guidance is clear enough for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses moderation application, dry_run preview, incremental scanning with local watermark, and cost implications ('cheap to run daily'). Missing details on permissions or idempotency, but overall informative.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose. Every part adds value, with no superfluous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a solid understanding of behavior and key parameters. It lacks explanation of the return value and some minor parameters, but is sufficient for a scanning tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning for 4 of 6 parameters: video_id (scope), auto_action (values), dry_run (preview), incremental (behavior). It does not explain limit or extra_words, but coverage is good for non-obvious parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool scans comments for banned words, with scope (one video or channel-wide) and key parameter effects. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like moderate_comment or list_comments by focusing on automated scanning and moderation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use the tool (scanning for banned words) and provides guidance on auto_action and incremental modes. It does not explicitly list when not to use it, but the context from sibling tools makes differentiation clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description fully discloses behavior: posts comment, tracks state locally, refuses double-post unless force=True, returns Studio URL for manual pin. Clearly explains limitations and special conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences covering main action, state tracking, and result. Front-loaded and efficient with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters and no output schema, description explains main behavior and result format. Could mention error handling or return structure explicitly, but sufficient for typical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, description implicitly covers 4 of 5 parameters: video_id, question, rules_url, and force. Missing dry_run parameter, but overall adds significant meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action 'Post' the specific resource 'giveaway question comment' with unique question and official-rules link. Distinguishes from siblings like 'post_video_question' by mentioning state tracking and double-post prevention.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage by describing the refusal to double-post unless force=True, and highlights the lack of a pin API. Could explicitly state when not to use vs alternatives, but provides clear behavioral context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![yt-studio-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/aaronckj/yt-studio-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/aaronckj/yt-studio-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![yt-studio-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/aaronckj/yt-studio-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/aaronckj/yt-studio-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/aaronckj/yt-studio-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server