list_channel_videos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the approximate limit (~15) and accepted channel formats, but does not mention pagination, ordering, whether it's a read-only operation, or what happens with invalid channels. The '~15' caveat is a small transparency credit, but significant behavioral gaps remain.

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?

One sentence with no wasted words. The key scoping detail ('up to ~15') is front-loaded, and the channel format clarification is compact and directly useful.

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

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

The tool is simple (2 params, no nested objects) and has an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with no annotations, it should disclose more about behavior: ordering, recency definition, error cases, and whether the limit is a hard cap. The channel format guidance is good, but the missing behavioral context leaves it slightly incomplete.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'channel' parameter's accepted formats, which adds real meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the 'limit' parameter's behavior beyond the default, and the schema already provides the default value. Partial compensation for a low-coverage schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool lists the latest videos of a channel, with a specific resource (channel) and a scope qualifier (up to ~15). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_transcript and get_video_info, which focus on individual videos, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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

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

The description implies usage: use this when you need a channel's recent videos. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like watch_channels for monitoring. The channel format guidance ('@handle, UC... id, or channel URL') is useful but doesn't address selection criteria among siblings.

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