youtube_list_playlists

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 describes parameters but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior, whether it requires prior authentication (a relevant consideration given youtube_auth exists), sorting, or what happens with results. The description is minimal and doesn't address the auth dependency this tool presumably has relative to its channel_id vs mine 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 efficient, using a one-line purpose followed by a tight three-item args block. Every sentence serves a purpose (purpose + parameter definitions). It could maybe note the mine/channel_id exclusivity, but overall it's lean.

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 listing tool with 0 required params and no output schema, the description is reasonably adequate. However, it doesn't address the auth requirement (relevant given youtube_auth sibling), result ordering, or the relationship between 'mine' and 'channel_id'. It also doesn't mention the playlist fields returned since there's no output schema to compensate.

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 parameter meaning isn't in the schema. The description does explain all three parameters (channel_id, mine, max_results with max 50), which adds real value beyond the schema itself. However, it doesn't clarify edge cases like what happens if both channel_id and mine are set, or whether channel_id is for a channel you don't own.

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 it lists playlists for a channel ('List playlists for a channel'), which is specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_videos and create_playlist by the resource being playlists, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 implicitly indicates the tool is for reading playlists, and the channel_id vs mine parameters suggest two usage modes. However, there's no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like youtube_search or youtube_reporting tools, nor when mine should be true versus channel_id.

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