Get Page Videos

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, so safety is covered. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that—it does not mention pagination (despite an 'after' parameter), rate limits, or that only non-live videos are returned. There is no contradiction, but the description fails to add meaningful behavioral detail that the annotations do not already provide.

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 extremely concise—two sentences: a clear purpose statement and a parameter list. The purpose is front-loaded, and every word earns its place. No fluff or redundancy; ideal for quick scanning.

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 tool with no output schema and a simple listing operation, the description is under-specified. It does not explain the return format, whether results are paginated (despite an 'after' parameter), or how this differs from related tools like live videos or ad videos. An agent would lack enough context to call it correctly without additional assumptions.

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 low (25%—only response_format has a description). The description partially compensates by explaining page_id (Facebook Page ID) and limit (max results, 1–100, default 20). However, it does not address the 'after' parameter (likely for pagination) or the response_format (already covered in schema). It adds value for two of four parameters but leaves gaps that an agent must infer from 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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Lists videos uploaded to a Facebook Page.' It is specific enough to distinguish from many siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate from other video-related tools such as meta_get_live_videos or meta_list_ad_videos. The purpose is unmistakable, but a slight nod to what it is not would elevate it.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what it does, with no mention of when not to use it (e.g., for live videos, ad videos, or Instagram media). Given the large sibling set, the absence of any selection criteria leaves the agent to infer usage purely from the name.

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