get_metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, and the description does not contradict these. It adds valuable behavioral context: no video download or frame extraction, a yt-dlp requirement for certain platforms, and a performance comparison to analyze_video.

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 three short, front-loaded paragraphs. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds a key behavioral distinction, and the third lists supported sources — every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with rich annotations, the description is complete: it covers purpose, supported inputs, performance trade-offs, and key constraints. Even without an output schema, it clearly signals the expected deliverable types (metadata, comments, chapters, AI summary).

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 covers the single url parameter at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying file:// URIs, the yt-dlp dependency for platform URLs, and concrete URL family examples, though the schema already includes most of the same type information.

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 opens with 'Get video metadata, comments, chapters, and AI summary from a video URL,' giving a specific verb, resource, and output scope. It also distinguishes itself from sibling analyze_video by noting it is faster when only metadata is needed.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool when you 'only need metadata' and directly compares to analyze_video ('Faster than analyze_video...'). The supported URL types and local file variants are enumerated, making applicability clear, and the 'without downloading the video or extracting frames' line implies when this tool is not appropriate.

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