list_videos

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 accurately implies a read-only listing operation, specifies the output fields, and notes the 'recent' scope. It doesn't explicitly state side effects, but for a list operation, non-destructiveness is safely implied. The description adds useful context beyond the schema, such as the workflow.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and output fields; the second sentence provides practical usage context and a pointer to a sibling tool. Every clause 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?

This is a low-complexity tool (one parameter, no output schema). The description conveys what it returns (video_id, title, status, creation date) and why it's useful (recover ID for later use). It does not require additional explanation of pagination or return formats given the simplicity and that the schema covers the limit parameter.

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 covers the single 'limit' parameter with 100% description coverage, including default, min, max, and semantics. The tool description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists recent videos in the HeyGen account and specifies exactly which fields are returned (video_id, title, status, creation date). It distinguishes itself from siblings by providing a concrete follow-up action (pass ID to check_video), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly frames the primary use case: recovering a video_id for a previously generated video. It also names the alternative tool (check_video) to obtain URL and duration, giving clear guidance on how to proceed after using this tool. This effectively differentiates it from siblings.

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