get_playlist_videos

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions what data is returned (videos with metadata and position), it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like pagination (beyond the maxResults parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether the operation is read-only (though implied by 'List'). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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

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

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and scope without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and includes relevant details about the returned data. Every element of the description serves a clear purpose.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does but lacks completeness. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like pagination, error handling, or authentication that would be important for an agent to use this tool effectively, especially with no annotations to fill those gaps.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (playlistId and maxResults with default). According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 specific action ('List all videos') and resource ('in a YouTube playlist'), including the scope of returned data ('with their metadata and position in the playlist'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_playlist_info (which likely returns playlist metadata) and get_channel_videos (which focuses on channel content rather than playlist content).

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 for retrieving videos from a specific playlist, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_channel_videos or get_video_details. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or comparative scenarios that would help an agent choose between similar tools.

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