gemini_youtube_summary_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Summarize a YouTube video' with no disclosure about requirements (e.g., captions), limitations (e.g., video length), or failure modes.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 output schema exists and params are documented, but the description omits behavioral constraints and usage caveats such as video length or caption requirements. It is minimally sufficient for a simple tool but lacks robustness.

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 input schema already describes all 3 parameters (url, model, style) with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning, 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 uses the specific verb 'Summarize' and resource 'YouTube video', clearly stating what the tool does. It distinguishes from generic summarization tools by specifying YouTube, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling gemini_youtube_tool.

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 usage when summarizing a YouTube video but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives like gemini_summarize_tool or gemini_youtube_tool. There are no when-not-to-use conditions.

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