ytdlp__get_video_metadata

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the URL scheme requirement, retry cap (2), response mode options, and cookie/proxy usage, giving useful operational context. It does not mention potential side effects (none expected) or API rate limits, but the provided details go beyond the schema.

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?

Starts with a clear one-sentence purpose, then uses @remarks and @param annotations to organize details. Each parameter line is necessary and accounts for all 6 params, with no fluff. The structure is front-loaded and scales well to the tool's complexity.

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?

With no output schema, the description mentions the return format ('full or filtered metadata fields as JSON') but does not give an example or deeper structure. All parameters are covered, and the tool's role among video-processing siblings is clear. Slight vagueness in output shape prevents a 5.

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 0%, but the description's @param lines fully compensate, providing examples, constraints, and defaults for every parameter. For instance, 'must start with http:// or https://', 'Comma-separated field names... empty returns all', and 'capped at 2 (default: 2)' add substantial meaning.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('raw metadata JSON for a video URL'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ytdlp__get_video_metadata_summary. The phrase 'raw metadata JSON' and 'using yt-dlp' add specificity.

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?

Provides clear context for use: fetching raw metadata from a video URL with optional filtering. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (like the summary sibling) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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