clash.optimize.youtube

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: read-only nature, no login credentials carried, and clarification that HTTP 401/403 are not network failures. This provides excellent transparency beyond what structured fields would convey.

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 concise, front-loads the core purpose, and includes necessary clarifications in a well-structured format. Every sentence adds value without 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 there is no output schema, the description adequately describes what the tool does and reports (layer-by-layer failures). It mentions domains, probes, and clarifies non-failure cases. Minor gaps: no details on return format or error handling, but sufficient for understanding.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters (skipProbes, probeBudgetMs) adequately. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is 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 the tool's function: read-only YouTube service network reachability diagnosis. It specifies the domains checked (googlevideo.com, ytimg.com), probes (web and API endpoints), and outcome (layer-by-layer failure reporting). This differentiates it from sibling tools like clash.optimize.diagnose_network or clash.optimize.openai.

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 usage for diagnosing YouTube connectivity issues. It explicitly lists exclusions (does not promise unlock, modify account state, read history, etc.), providing clear boundaries. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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