vadyu_list_videos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden; 'List' reasonably implies a read-only operation and it discloses the available status filter values and that results are paginated. It does not state ordering, default page size behavior, what a returned item contains, or any rate/permission constraints beyond account scoping.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted preamble; the account scope comes first and the optional filter/pagination follow. The parenthetical status list is slightly redundant but does not bloat the text.

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?

For a low-complexity, zero-required-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps remain around result ordering and typical response contents, but neither blocks a correct call.

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 100%, so page, limit, and status are already fully documented with defaults, bounds, and an enum. The description's parenthetical enumeration of 'done', 'processing', 'failed' merely repeats the schema enum and adds no new constraint or format detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list generated video ads) plus scope (authenticated Vadyu account), which cleanly separates it from siblings like vadyu_list_recipes, vadyu_list_studio_forks, and the single-item vadyu_get_video_status. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

Usage is implied: call this to enumerate video ads, optionally narrowed by status. It gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not or routing to alternatives such as using vadyu_get_video_status for a single video, leaving the agent to infer that.

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