get_user_videos

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that it can filter by video type and limit results, which is useful. However, it omits behavior like pagination, error handling, or whether authentication is required, leaving some gaps typical for a read-only tool.

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 in Spanish, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately followed by the key options. Every word earns its place, with no fluff 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately explains how to fetch and filter videos. However, it does not specify the return format or pagination behavior, which would be helpful given no output schema is present, leaving moderate 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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (login, limit, video_type), so the schema already explains meanings and defaults. The description only echoes the filter and limit capabilities, adding no new semantic detail beyond the schema, making baseline 3 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 clearly states a specific action ('Obtiene los videos de un usuario de Twitch') with a direct verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user_clips (clips) and get_twitch_user (user info) by focusing on videos. It also highlights filter and limit options, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 context: use this to retrieve a Twitch user's videos, optionally filtered by type and limit. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, relying on the tool name and sibling list for differentiation. No exclusionary guidance is provided.

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