get_video_chapters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly notes that an empty list is returned when no chapters exist, which is valuable. It also indicates the data source (player interface). However, it does not mention read-only status or pagination, though the empty-list behavior partially compensates.

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, using three short sentences with no filler. The key information (what it retrieves) is front-loaded, and the empty-list behavior is added as a useful note. Structure is adequate for the content length.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must fully explain inputs and outputs. It fails to describe the parameters (p, url_or_bvid) and provides no information about the return format beyond the empty-list case. For a simple tool this is still incomplete; an agent would need to guess parameter semantics.

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 has 0% description coverage for its two parameters (p and url_or_bvid). The description does not explain either parameter's meaning or usage, leaving the agent to rely on parameter names alone. This is a significant gap that the description should have addressed.

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 retrieves video chapters, specifies the source (player interface) and that they are manually segmented by the uploader. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_video_subtitles or get_video_info by focusing on chapters specifically.

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 the tool is for retrieving chapter data but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or comparison with sibling tools is provided, leaving the agent to infer based on the name.

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