youtube_accounts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool 'Lists' information, which indicates a read-only, non-destructive operation. It also adds the location of configuration as extra context. It does not mention error cases, authentication requirements, or side effects, but for a simple listing tool these are unlikely to be significant. The description is transparent about what the tool does and returns.

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 two sentences with zero waste. The primary function is stated first, and the usage hint is appended after. Every word contributes to either explaining what the tool does or when to use it. It is appropriately short 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?

For a simple, parameterless listing tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns (authorized channels, default, configuration location) and its role as an entry point. Nothing critical is missing. An agent can invoke this tool correctly without further clarification.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no schema to supplement. The description itself adds no parameter information (there is none). Per the guideline, 0 params baseline is 4 because there is nothing to describe. The description is sufficient and does not need to compensate for any gap.

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 ('List') and names the resource ('authorized channels') and additional outputs (default channel, configuration location). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like youtube_capabilities by focusing on channel authorization state rather than general platform capabilities.

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 phrase 'Start here when unsure what this server can see' provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool as a discovery entry point. It does not name specific alternatives or exclusions, but the context strongly implies that for targeted operations (e.g., authorizing, setting default), the user should use other tools. This is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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