list_videos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the scope ('on this machine') and mentions disk space usage, which is additional context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't detail behavior like live updates of running jobs or error cases, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 compact: it states what is listed, the fields, and the purpose in two sentences. It front-loads the core function and lists key return fields, then gives usage reasons. Every clause earns its place; no fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the rich sibling context, and clear schema, the description covers everything needed for correct invocation. It specifies what is returned, ordering, usage cases, and even performance characteristics (instant, read-only). No gaps for an agent to make mistakes.

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%, but the parameter is simple (limit with default, min, max). The description does not explain the limit semantics, but since it's a common parameter with schema constraints, baseline 3 is given; the description could add 'Use limit to control result count' but doesn't need much.

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 videos already processed by yueying, plus running jobs, with a specific set of fields returned, and notes ordering (newest first). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on already-processed videos and running jobs, not on watching, transcript retrieval, or frame lookup.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: when user refers to a video watched earlier, to fetch video_id for other tools, or to check disk space. It also implicitly guides away from siblings by mentioning the video_id is for the other tools, and characterizes the tool as instant and read-only, reinforcing usage context.

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