get_video

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns details (implying a read operation), but it does not mention potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or failure behavior (e.g., if the video ID is invalid or missing). This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and output. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing return fields explicitly), but for this simple case it is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It lists key return fields (title, description, duration, etc.), though it could mention error handling or prerequisites. Overall, sufficient for the agent's decision-making.

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 description for video_id is 'Unique identifier for the video', which is clear. The tool description adds that the tool returns full details but does not add new semantics beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieve' and identifies the resource as 'a specific video by ID'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like edit_video (modify) and merge_videos (combine), leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 when a video's full details are needed by ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_recorded_videos (to browse) or edit_video (to modify). The context from sibling names provides indirect guidance, but the description itself lacks direct usage instructions.

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