youtube_list_videos

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that for channels it uses the uploads playlist, returns video summaries with stats, sorts by most recent, and that playlist_id overrides channel_id. These are valuable behavioral traits. It doesn't mention auth requirements beyond `mine` or edge cases like no arguments provided, but it still offers substantial transparency for a list operation.

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 appropriately sized, with a one-sentence purpose, a brief behavioral note, and a clear Args list. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff. The structure is logical 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?

Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core function, the source playlist behavior, return content, sorting, and all parameters. It's missing explicit notes on auth requirements for channel/playlist listing and behavior when no arguments are provided, but for a relatively simple listed tool, it is largely complete.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates by including an Args section that explains each parameter: channel_id, playlist_id (with override behavior), mine (authenticated user's videos), and max_results (max 50). This adds meaning well beyond the bare input 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 opens with 'List videos from a channel or playlist,' a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like youtube_search and youtube_get_video by focusing on listing from a known channel/playlist and explaining it uses the channel's uploads playlist. The purpose is unambiguous and separates it from related tools.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: when you have a channel ID or playlist ID and want to list videos. It also explains the `mine` option for the authenticated user's videos. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., youtube_search) or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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