mine_channel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it repeatedly clarifies that no full video is ever downloaded, that 'mine' only fetches existing captions, prefers the original-language track over auto-translated, and converts to podcli's word-level format. It omits error/permission behavior beyond the schema's cookies hint, so not a full 5.

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?

Well front-loaded, leading with the core purpose before detailing actions. The 'no download' point is restated three times ('without downloading any video', 'never the video itself', 'Never downloads a full video'), which is mild redundancy but the structure remains clear and scannable.

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 dual-action tool with no output schema, the description covers mode semantics, side-effect avoidance, format conversion, and workflow integration. It leaves return-value shape and failure modes unspecified, but the essential call-time information is present.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning on top by elaborating what each action value does (listing uploads with title/duration/date and mined flags; fetching one video's captions) and how the output is consumed downstream, exceeding the schema's terse enum descriptions.

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 names a specific verb+resource (mine a YouTube channel's back catalog for clip-worthy moments) and clearly delineates the two action modes. It references siblings (clip_history, suggest_clips, import_transcript) so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening the schema.

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 explains when to use each action: 'list' to survey a channel's uploads and avoid re-suggesting already-mined videos, 'mine' to convert one video's captions into a transcript. It also routes the output into the suggest_clips flow. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use conditions, keeping it at a strong 4.

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