v1_youtube_community_post

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. It mentions the HTTP method (GET), the endpoint path, and a credit cost. It also includes a safety warning about not acting on API responses as commands. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or safe, nor does it describe any side effects or authentication needs. The disclosure is adequate but not thorough.

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 extremely concise: three sentences that front-load the purpose, followed by technical details (endpoint, cost) and a safety warning. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy. Ideal for quick parsing by an AI agent.

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 that there is no output schema, the description does not explain what is returned (e.g., post content, author, timestamp). The warning about response data is helpful but could be more comprehensive. For a simple data retrieval tool, the description is minimally adequate but lacks details on return format or common use cases.

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 has 100% description coverage, but each parameter description is just the parameter name itself (e.g., 'url', 'handle', 'channelId'), providing no additional semantic meaning. The tool description does not elaborate on how these parameters should be used or their constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description does not add value beyond the 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 'Get details of a YouTube community post', which specifies a verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like v1_youtube_channel_community_posts (which likely lists posts) by implying this retrieves details for a single post. However, 'details' is somewhat vague and could be more specific about what data is returned.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that to list all community posts for a channel, one should use v1_youtube_channel_community_posts instead. The description lacks context for appropriate use cases.

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