yt_get_safety_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine domain context beyond that: deleting a video and changing these settings always require confirmation while the rest are user-configurable, which tells the agent what the returned policy actually contains. It stops short of describing the return shape or whether defaults can vary per channel.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the policy facts that matter. "In plain words" is slightly vague filler, but there is no redundant or padded content.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with complete annotation coverage, the description supplies enough to call it correctly and to understand what is being reported. The one remaining gap is that no output schema exists and the description does not say what form the policy list comes back in (flat list, per-action entries), which is minor for such a simple query.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the schema to describe and nothing for the description to compensate for. The baseline of 4 applies; no parameter meaning is missing or contradictory.

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?

"Show which actions ask the user for a yes before they run" is a specific verb plus resource: it reads the confirmation policy for actions. It is clearly distinct from yt_set_safety_settings (a mutation) and from the list/upload siblings, though it never names the setter explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by the read-only framing ("show which actions...") but there is no explicit guidance such as "call this before attempting a delete" or "to change these rules, use yt_set_safety_settings." An agent can infer the context but is given no when-to-use trigger or exclusion.

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