list_uploader_videos

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions order options (pubdate/click/stow), which adds some behavioral context, but it does not disclose read-only vs. mutating behavior, pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or what happens on invalid input. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 brief (two short segments) and front-loads the primary purpose. The final clause about batch subtitles adds a tangential use case but does not bloat the text. It is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool, though the incomplete parameter coverage prevents a 5.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is not complete. It lacks information about the return format, pagination semantics, error behavior, and any prerequisites. An agent calling this tool would not know what data it receives or how to handle pages, making it inadequate for reliable invocation.

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 all parameters. It only explains the 'order' parameter (pubdate/click/stow) and leaves 'mid' and 'page' entirely undocumented. The description does not clarify that mid is the uploader's ID or that page controls pagination, which are essential for correct invocation.

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 states 'UP 主投稿列表' (uploader's submission list), which clearly indicates a list operation on an uploader's videos. It distinguishes from siblings like list_uploader_collections by focusing on '投稿' (submissions) rather than collections, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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 a concrete use case ('配合批量字幕可把整个 UP 主的课程转笔记' – with batch subtitles, convert the uploader's courses into notes), which implies when it could be used. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., search_videos) or state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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