Scan a channel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-style operation through words like 'metadata' and 'read a channel's strategy', and it lists the returned content. It does not address ordering, pagination, error behavior, or whether missing channels are handled gracefully, but for a read-only channel-scan tool the gaps are moderate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that packs the output contents and the intended analytic value without filler. Every part earns its place.

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 does the work of explaining return values, and it names the major components: channel metadata and recent uploads with views. It omits precise object shape and ordering, but the schema covers maxVideos limits and the tool's purpose is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 already covers both parameters thoroughly: 'channel' accepts ID/@handle/URL and 'maxVideos' has a range and default. The description adds only the general concept of 'recent uploads', so it does not materially enrich the parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 clearly identifies the resource (a channel) and the returned data: channel metadata (name, subscribers, description) plus recent uploads with views. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like get_video, search_videos, or transcript tools because it is channel-scoped and returns channel-level analytics.

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 description implies a use case: reading a channel's strategy, cadence, and performance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings, nor does it mention exclusions or when another tool would be more appropriate.

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