extract_video_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does communicate the core behavior: a read-only extraction of metadata and a direct link from supported video pages. However, it does not mention what happens with unsupported URLs, error behavior, return format, or whether any network-side side effects occur.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, direct sentence conveys the verb, resource, scope, and supported platforms without unnecessary words. Every element earns its place, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a low-complexity tool with one required parameter and no output schema. The description tells an agent what it will get (metadata and direct link) and which sources are supported. It lacks detailed return fields or failure behavior, but for a simple one-URL tool it is largely sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already documents the single parameter well, with the description stating it is the URL of the page for getting info about the video to extract. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not add much beyond confirming the platform scope. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb ('extracts'), a specific resource ('metadata and direct link'), and explicitly scopes supported platforms (youtube, tiktok, facebook). This clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling download_video: one extracts info, the other downloads video files.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies this tool is for retrieving metadata and direct links rather than downloading videos, but it never explicitly says 'use download_video when you want the video file' or provides exclusion criteria. An agent can infer the intended use, but the guidance is not spelled out.

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