get_watch_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only states the basic function and the 'authenticated user' qualifier, which implies auth requirements but does not disclose error handling, pagination behavior, rate limits, or whether results are sorted. An agent calling this tool would have no warning about its runtime behavior or potential side effects (if any).

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, direct sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose without any fluff. It is efficiently front-loaded and avoids redundancy. While it could include additional helpful context (like output format), it achieves clarity in minimal words, which is appropriately concise for a simple getter.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate but not fully complete. It does not mention the return format (e.g., a list of video IDs), whether the history is sorted, or any constraints such as maximum page size beyond the default. An agent might need to assume behavior, so the description falls short of being fully contextual.

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 one parameter, max_results, with a description ('Max results (default 20)') that fully documents it, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no extra detail about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline for high coverage but does not enhance it.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('watch history') and qualifies it with 'authenticated user', making the purpose unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like search_videos or get_video_details, which address different resources, so an agent can select it without confusion.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios where one might prefer search_videos or get_video_details, nor does it state whether this should be used only for the user's own history. The agent is left to infer usage context from the purpose alone.

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