Ytdlp Get Metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it does not download files, which aligns with these hints. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like response size limits, authentication requirements (beyond parameter existence), or rate limits. Given the rich annotations, the description adds moderate value.

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 concise (two sentences), front-loaded with the core action and method. While not verbose, it could be enhanced by structuring parameters or providing a quick example. However, it remains efficient and avoids redundancy.

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 complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not cover key aspects like playlist handling (flatPlaylist), pagination (limit/offset), authentication options, or network configurations. The output schema exists, so return values are partially documented elsewhere, but usage context is lacking.

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 only lists example output fields but does not explain any parameters (url, auth, limit, offset, network, flatPlaylist, responseFormat). For example, responseFormat's enum values (json/markdown) are not mentioned. The description adds little meaning beyond what the schema structually provides.

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 action ('extract structured metadata'), the resource ('media URL'), and the method ('using yt-dlp --dump-json'). It lists specific fields (title, duration, uploader, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on individual aspects like formats or subtitles.

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 by listing what to inspect ('title, duration, ...'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ytdlp_list_formats or ytdlp_list_subtitles. No exclusions or conditions are provided.

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