List Channel Videos

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide—it doesn't mention pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the return format looks like. However, it doesn't contradict annotations, so it meets the lower bar with annotations present but adds minimal 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Get videos from a specific channel' directly conveys the core action without fluff. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loaded with the essential information. Every word earns its place.

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 low complexity (simple list operation), rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema, the description doesn't explain return values (e.g., video list format, metadata included), which is a gap. It's complete enough for basic use but lacks details on output behavior.

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 100%, with both parameters ('channelId' and 'maxResults') fully described in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain format expectations for 'channelId' (e.g., YouTube-specific ID format) or default/typical values for 'maxResults'. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get videos from a specific channel' clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'videos' with scope 'from a specific channel'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'videos_getVideo' (single video) and 'videos_searchVideos' (search across YouTube), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like 'playlists_getPlaylistItems' which also retrieves video lists. The purpose is specific but could be more precise about the list nature.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'videos_searchVideos' for channel-specific searches, or 'playlists_getPlaylistItems' for playlist videos. There's no context about prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs) or exclusions. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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