List Facebook Live Videos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies a required preceding call to meta_list_pages and describes the return fields (title, status, views, creation time). It does not contradict annotations; in fact, it reinforces the read-only nature implicitly.

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 well-structured: a single-line purpose, a separate prerequisite line, a compact Args list, and a return summary. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy. The format is scannable and concise.

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 read-only list operation with no output schema, the description explains the return content and the prerequisite. It covers most parameters and clarifies filtering and pagination. However, it omits the response_format parameter, which is present in the schema and affects the output shape. Also, it does not describe pagination behavior explicitly (e.g., how the 'after' cursor is used), though it is mentioned. These are minor gaps.

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 80% (4 of 5 parameters described). The description explains page_id, broadcast_status (as a filter with allowed values), limit (as max results with range and default), and after (as pagination cursor). It adds semantic value by clarifying that limit is a max results count and broadcast_status filters results. It misses response_format, but that parameter is self-explanatory in the schema as an output format choice.

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 states the tool lists live videos on a Facebook Page, using a specific verb (lists) and resource (live videos). It distinguishes from other tools like meta_create_live_video or meta_get_page_videos by explicitly focusing on live videos. The return summary adds precision about what details are included.

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 explicitly states a prerequisite: 'Requires: meta_list_pages called first to load page tokens.' This gives clear context for when to call the tool. However, it does not name alternative tools (e.g., meta_get_page_videos for all videos) or provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios. The usage is implied by the tool name and purpose, but there is clear context with the prerequisite.

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