list-videos

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

The description discloses a quota cost (1 quota unit per call) and a limit of 50 videos, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not mention error handling, authentication requirements, or behavior for invalid/missing IDs. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only partially fulfills it.

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, clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and includes essential limiting information (50 videos, quota cost) efficiently.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: the action, the input constraint, and the kind of data returned. It lacks explicit return structure but the high-level summary is adequate for an agent to select the tool.

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 sole parameter videoIds is already well-described in the schema with 'Video IDs', and the schema provides constraints (maxItems 50). The description adds 'by ID' and 'up to 50' but these are redundant with schema. No additional meaning is provided.

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: to fetch metadata, status, and statistics for up to 50 videos by ID. The verb 'Fetch' plus the resource 'videos' differentiates it from sibling tools like list-channels or update-video.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search or list-channels. It implies usage for known video IDs but does not state exclusions or preferred contexts.

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