list_videos

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

With no annotations, the description discloses pagination support, the 'all' scope, and that it returns metadata. It does not describe the metadata fields, default sort order, or any edge cases (e.g., empty pages), leaving some behavior implicit.

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 sentences: the first states the action and scope, the second states the purpose. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and pagination. It could mention the default ordering or the exact metadata fields returned, but the schema covers parameter details, making this sufficient for basic use.

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 provides thorough descriptions for all three parameters (after, limit, order) with default values and max constraints, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description's mention of pagination aligns with the 'after' cursor parameter, adding minimal extra context.

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 resource ('video jobs'), and 'with pagination support' further clarifies scope. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_video, delete_video, and get_video_status, which perform different operations.

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?

It gives explicit usage context: 'for enumeration, dashboards, or housekeeping.' However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_video_status, which targets a single video's status, so the guidance is clear but lacks exclusions.

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