summarize_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions input arguments and a return type, but does not disclose any limitations, prerequisites, network/API behavior, authentication needs, or potential errors. This is insufficient for a tool that likely fetches video data externally.

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 extremely concise and well-structured, with a one-sentence purpose followed by a clean Args and Returns block. Every line adds value, with no filler or redundancy.

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 relatively simple read-style tool, the description covers the core purpose, arguments, and return value, and the presence of an output schema covers return format details. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral caveats, which would round out its completeness.

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 has no descriptions for parameters, so the description compensates by explaining that video_url accepts a URL or ID, summary_length takes short/medium/long, and language defaults to en. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, but it does not quantify what different summary lengths produce.

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's function with a specific verb+resource: 'Generate a summary of a YouTube video.' This distinguishes it in general from sibling tools like get_transcript or extract_key_points, but it does not explicitly differentiate or reference those alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (get_transcript, extract_key_points, get_video_metadata). The description only states what it does and lists parameters; no context about appropriate scenarios or exclusions is provided.

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