list_favorite_videos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It usefully discloses an authentication requirement ('需登录 Cookie'), which is a meaningful prerequisite. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, possible failure modes, read-only nature, or response shape, leaving several behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 very concise: two short sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and a relevant use-case hint in the second sentence. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema is present.

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, no annotations, and two unannotated parameters, the description is only partially complete. It covers the essential purpose, the login Cookie requirement, and a workflow use case, but it omits explicit guidance on how folder_id is obtained and what the returned list contains beyond being 'videos'.

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 for missing parameter documentation. It only vaguely maps folder_id to a favorites folder via '收藏夹内' and says nothing about the page parameter, pagination limits, or where folder_id can be obtained.

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 identifies the resource as '收藏夹内的视频列表' (video list inside a favorites folder) and adds the prerequisite of a login Cookie. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like list_favorite_folders, but it does not state an explicit action verb such as 'list' or 'fetch' in the description itself.

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 gives an implied use case: combined with subtitles/ASR, it can turn an entire favorites folder into notes. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over alternatives, nor does it mention using list_favorite_folders to obtain folder_id or that get_collection_videos handles public collections.

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