Video Fetch MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. '列出所有下载任务' implies a read-only listing operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it returns active/completed tasks, pagination, sorting, rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a listing tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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, efficient phrase ('列出所有下载任务') that directly states the purpose with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loaded with the core action.

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's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output format, or usage context. For a listing tool, it should ideally clarify scope (e.g., all tasks vs. filtered) or return structure, but the absence of an output schema increases the burden slightly.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline. No compensation is required, and it doesn't introduce confusion about parameters.

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 '列出所有下载任务' (List all download tasks) clearly states the verb (list) and resource (download tasks). It distinguishes from siblings like 'cancel_task' (action) and 'get_task_status' (status query) by indicating it returns all tasks rather than specific ones. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_video_info' which might return different resource types.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_task_status' for specific task details or 'cancel_task' for task management. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or any exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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