vidlens-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.2.2
Disambiguation3/5
There is significant functional overlap between tools, causing potential confusion. For example, 'analyzePlaylist', 'expandPlaylist', and 'importPlaylist' all handle playlists but with unclear distinctions, and 'findVideos' vs 'exploreYouTube' both search YouTube with overlapping purposes. However, detailed descriptions help differentiate some tools, preventing complete ambiguity.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun naming pattern (e.g., 'analyzePlaylist', 'checkSystemHealth', 'downloadAsset'), which is consistent and predictable. A few tools deviate slightly (e.g., 'exploreYouTube' uses a proper noun, 'findSimilarFrames' uses an adjective), but these are minor exceptions that don't disrupt overall readability.
Tool Count2/5
With 41 tools, the count is excessive for the server's purpose of YouTube video analysis and management. Many tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple playlist-related tools) or represent overly granular operations, making the surface unwieldy and likely to overwhelm agents or users.
Completeness5/5
The tool set comprehensively covers the domain of YouTube video analysis, including discovery, import, transcription, comment handling, visual indexing, search, and management. It provides full lifecycle coverage from video retrieval to deep analysis, with no apparent gaps that would hinder agent workflows.
Average 3.1/5 across 41 of 41 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
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 mentions 'partial success, item-level errors, and provenance' which hints at error handling and metadata, but doesn't clarify critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, rate limits, or what happens during execution. For a tool with 5 parameters and batch processing capabilities, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality and some behavioral characteristics. It's appropriately sized without unnecessary verbiage, though it could be more front-loaded with clearer purpose before mentioning error handling details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 5 parameters (2 required), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how errors are handled beyond mentioning 'item-level errors', or provide sufficient context about the analyses being performed. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about what 'videoIdsOrUrls', 'analyses', 'commentsSampleSize', 'transcriptMode', or 'dryRun' mean or how they should be used. The description doesn't compensate for this complete lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Run multiple analyses across a video set' which provides a basic verb+resource combination, but it's vague about what specific analyses are performed. It mentions 'partial success, item-level errors, and provenance' which adds some context but doesn't clearly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'analyzePlaylist' or 'inspectVideo' that might also analyze video content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'analyzePlaylist' or 'inspectVideo', leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions what the tool checks (transcript availability, warnings, issues) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens in dry-run mode. For a diagnostic tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured by separating different diagnostic aspects. It appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains what the tool checks but doesn't cover parameter meanings, return values, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For a diagnostic tool in this context, it should provide more guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters or their semantics. It doesn't explain what 'videoIdOrUrl', 'language', or 'dryRun' mean or how they affect the diagnosis. With 3 parameters and no schema documentation, the description fails to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to diagnose import readiness for videos, checking transcript availability, sparse-transcript warnings, and yt-dlp/API issues. It uses specific verbs ('diagnose') and identifies the resource ('video'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'inspectVideo' or 'analyzeVideoSet' which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., before import), or exclusions. With many sibling tools like 'inspectVideo' and 'analyzeVideoSet', this lack of differentiation leaves the agent guessing about appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It hints at read-only behavior ('inspect') but doesn't explicitly state whether it's safe, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on failure. The mention of 'dryRun' in the schema suggests potential side effects, but the description doesn't clarify this.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There's no fluff or redundancy. However, it could be more structured by explicitly separating purpose from output details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and two parameters (one optional with unclear semantics), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication, error handling, return format, and parameter usage, making it inadequate for reliable tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds no information about 'channelIdOrHandleOrUrl' (e.g., format, examples) or 'dryRun' (e.g., purpose, default behavior). The description only vaguely relates to parameters via 'inspect a channel', leaving semantics unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('inspect') and the resource ('a channel'), and specifies what information is returned ('summary stats and posting cadence heuristics'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'listChannelCatalog' or 'exploreYouTube' by focusing on detailed analysis rather than listing or exploration. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'inspectVideo' in terms of scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., channel must exist), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'inspectVideo' or 'listChannelCatalog'. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers limited behavioral insight. It mentions the output shape ('compact creator-analysis shape'), which adds some context, but fails to disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'dryRun' does. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There's no wasted verbiage, and it directly states the tool's function. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from output format, but overall it's appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks essential details: no explanation of return values or error behaviors, minimal parameter guidance, and insufficient behavioral context for safe invocation. The description alone is inadequate for an agent to use this tool effectively without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter-specific information. It doesn't explain what 'channelIdOrHandleOrUrl' accepts, the meaning of 'compact creator-analysis shape' in relation to parameters, or clarify parameter interactions (e.g., 'includeShorts' vs 'includeLongForm'). With 7 undocumented parameters, the description fails to provide necessary semantic context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('a channel's recent catalog'), specifying the output format ('compact creator-analysis shape'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'inspectChannel' or 'analyzeVideoSet' by focusing on catalog listing rather than detailed inspection or analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'findVideos' or other listing tools, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage for recent catalog listing in a specific format, but doesn't mention when not to use it or name sibling alternatives like 'findVideos' or 'inspectChannel' for different needs. This leaves the agent with minimal contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions outputs (themes, risk signals, quotes), it doesn't describe what 'heuristic' means operationally, whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens during a dry run. Significant behavioral context is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does, though it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from outputs.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It explains the high-level purpose but provides no parameter guidance, no behavioral context, no output format information, and no differentiation from sibling tools. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 5 parameters, the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'videoIdOrUrl' should contain, what 'sampleSize' controls, what the boolean flags do, or what 'dryRun' means. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs 'audience sentiment analysis from comments' with specific outputs (themes, risk signals, quote samples), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'searchComments' or 'readComments' that might also process comments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'searchComments' or 'readComments'. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions that would help an agent choose between similar comment-processing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'long-video safeguards' which hints at performance considerations, but doesn't describe what these safeguards entail, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens in different modes. The description is too vague about actual behavior beyond the basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality. Every phrase contributes meaning, though it could be more structured by separating mode options from safeguards. No wasted words or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return formats for different modes, error handling, performance characteristics, or how parameters interact. The 'long-video safeguards' hint is too vague to provide meaningful guidance for a complex tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for 8 parameters, the description fails to compensate adequately. It mentions 'summary, key moments, chapters, or paginated full mode' which partially explains the 'mode' parameter, but doesn't clarify the purpose of other parameters like 'chunkWindowSec', 'offset', 'limit', 'dryRun', or how 'language' interacts with transcript reading. The description adds minimal value beyond what the enum suggests.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Read') and resource ('transcript') with specific output modes (summary, key moments, chapters, full). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'searchTranscripts' by focusing on reading/retrieving rather than searching. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'inspectVideo' which might also provide transcript information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'long-video safeguards' which implies a usage context for lengthy content, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'searchTranscripts' or 'inspectVideo'. No when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisite conditions are specified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'heuristically' which suggests approximate scoring, but doesn't explain what constitutes a 'hook', how scoring works, what the output format looks like, whether it's computationally intensive, or any rate limits. For a tool that processes up to 20 videos, more behavioral context would be helpful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function. While more context would be helpful, what's present is well-structured without unnecessary verbiage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'hook' is, how scoring works, what the output looks like, or provide enough parameter guidance. Given the complexity of video analysis and the lack of structured documentation, the description should do more heavy lifting.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters, the description provides minimal parameter context. It mentions 'first-30-second hooks' which relates to the hookWindowSec parameter (defaulting to 30 seconds), but doesn't explain videoIdsOrUrls format or what dryRun does. The description doesn't compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions, leaving key parameters inadequately explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('score') and target ('first-30-second hooks across one or more videos'), with the qualifier 'heuristically' indicating an approximate method. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing specifically on hook analysis rather than broader video analysis, playlist handling, or comment processing. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'analyzeVideoSet' or 'inspectVideo'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. With many sibling tools available for video analysis (analyzeVideoSet, inspectVideo, compareShortsVsLong, etc.), there's no indication of when hook scoring is preferable to other analytical approaches. No prerequisites, limitations, or comparison to similar tools are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'active-collection focus by default' and 'return ranked timestamped chunks', which gives some behavioral insight (default behavior and output format). However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's read-only/destructive, leaving significant gaps for a search tool with multiple parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads key information (search action and default behavior). It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It provides basic purpose and a hint about default behavior but lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, and output format, making it inadequate for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all parameters. It only implies 'active-collection focus by default' (related to 'useActiveCollection' and 'collectionId'), but doesn't explain the purpose of 'query', 'maxResults', 'minScore', or 'videoIdFilter'. This leaves most parameters undocumented, failing to add meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('search'), target ('imported transcript-text collections'), and output ('return ranked timestamped chunks'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'searchComments' or 'searchVisualContent' beyond mentioning transcript-text collections, which is implied but not contrasted.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'active-collection focus by default', which provides some context for when to use this tool regarding collection selection. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'searchComments' or 'readTranscript', and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'partial success and aggregate benchmarks,' hinting at error handling and performance metrics, but this is insufficient. It doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, data persistence, or what 'expand' entails (e.g., fetching videos). The description adds minimal value beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence, front-loaded with the core action. There is no wasted language, making it efficient to parse. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits, and expected outputs. While it states the purpose, it doesn't provide enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively, especially compared to richer siblings like 'analyzeVideoSet.'
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention any parameters or their meanings, such as 'playlistUrlOrId' or 'analyses.' The phrase 'partial success and aggregate benchmarks' loosely relates to outcomes but doesn't clarify input semantics. With 6 parameters undocumented, this is a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Expand and analyze a playlist in one call.' It specifies the resource (playlist) and the action (expand and analyze), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'expandPlaylist' (which only expands) or 'analyzeVideoSet' (which analyzes a set, not a playlist). However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'analyzeVideoSet' in terms of scope or method.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It mentions 'partial success and aggregate benchmarks,' but this is vague and doesn't clarify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't compare to 'analyzeVideoSet' or 'expandPlaylist,' leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It mentions what components are checked but doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, whether it performs actual tests or just configuration checks, or what happens when issues are found.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently lists the components being checked. Every word earns its place with no wasted verbiage or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a health-check tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the check entails, what output to expect, how to interpret results, or how parameters affect the operation. The context demands more comprehensive documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It doesn't mention the two parameters (runLiveChecks, dryRun) at all, leaving their purpose and usage completely undocumented. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: checking health of specific components (yt-dlp, YouTube API, Gemini embeddings, local storage). It uses the verb 'check' with specific resources, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'mediaStoreHealth' which might overlap.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or when to choose this over similar tools like 'mediaStoreHealth' or 'checkImportReadiness'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions comparing performance and suggesting a format mix, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data sources, or whether it's a read-only or mutative operation. For a tool with three parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality without unnecessary words. It directly states the action and outcome, making it easy to understand at a glance. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (comparing performance and suggesting mixes), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'performance' metrics are used, how the suggestion is derived, or what the output might look like. For a tool with three parameters and analytical output, more context is needed to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description doesn't add any semantic details about the parameters (channelIdOrHandleOrUrl, lookbackDays, dryRun), such as what formats are accepted for the channel identifier, the default or typical value for lookbackDays, or what dryRun entails. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Compare recent Shorts vs long-form performance for a channel and suggest a format mix.' It specifies the verb ('compare'), resource ('Shorts vs long-form performance for a channel'), and outcome ('suggest a format mix'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyzeVideoSet' or 'inspectChannel', which might also involve channel analysis, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools such as 'analyzeVideoSet' or 'inspectChannel', which could overlap in functionality. Without such context, users might struggle to select the appropriate tool for their needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'returns compact ranked results with provenance and engagement hints' which provides some output behavior, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with the dryRun parameter. For a search tool with 9 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just two clauses, front-loading the core purpose ('Search YouTube videos by intent') followed by the return format. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or wasted text. The structure moves logically from action to outcome.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavioral characteristics, leaves most parameters semantically unclear, and while it mentions the return format ('compact ranked results with provenance and engagement hints'), it doesn't fully describe what those terms mean or the structure of results. For a search tool in a crowded sibling space, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 11% (just the 'query' parameter has a description), leaving 8 parameters undocumented in the schema. The description doesn't compensate by explaining any parameters beyond what's implied by 'search YouTube videos by intent' for the query. It doesn't clarify what 'by intent' means operationally or explain parameters like regionCode, dryRun, or duration enums.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search YouTube videos by intent' specifies the verb (search) and resource (YouTube videos), with the 'by intent' qualifier adding nuance. It distinguishes from siblings like 'exploreYouTube' or 'searchComments' by focusing on video search with ranking. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'searchVisualContent' or 'findSimilarFrames' which might have overlapping functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. With many sibling tools like 'exploreYouTube', 'searchVisualContent', and 'findSimilarFrames', there's no indication of when this specific video search tool is appropriate versus those other search/discovery tools. The description mentions 'compact ranked results' but doesn't explain when that format is preferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While 'Import' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't cover critical behaviors like: what permissions are needed, whether it's idempotent, how long processing takes, error handling, or what happens to existing data. It mentions the purpose but lacks operational details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex tool with 14 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is severely inadequate. It explains the high-level purpose but provides none of the operational details needed to understand how to use the tool effectively, what to expect, or how it interacts with the system.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 14 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'playlistUrlOrId' should contain, what 'collectionId' refers to, how 'chunkStrategy' options differ, or the purpose of any other parameters. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Import a playlist') and the target resource ('local transcript knowledge base'), with a specific purpose ('for semantic search in Claude Desktop'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'importVideos' or 'importComments' which might handle similar imports.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'importVideos' or 'analyzePlaylist', nor does it mention prerequisites, dependencies, or typical use cases. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions the tool imports videos for later semantic search, but fails to describe critical behaviors like whether it's idempotent, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap for a tool with 13 parameters and no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately concise for its complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high complexity (13 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meanings, expected outputs, error handling, or integration with sibling tools. For a tool that likely performs significant processing, this leaves too many gaps for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for 13 undocumented parameters. It only vaguely references 'one or more videos' and 'collection', failing to explain the purpose of key parameters like 'chunkStrategy', 'embeddingProvider', or 'dryRun'. The description adds minimal value beyond what the schema's property names imply.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Import') and target ('videos into a local transcript collection') with a specific purpose ('for later semantic search'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'importComments' or 'importPlaylist' by focusing on videos for transcripts, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all video-related tools like 'analyzeVideoSet'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'importPlaylist' or 'analyzeVideoSet', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an existing collection or system readiness. It only implies usage for preparing videos for semantic search without contextual boundaries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'compact metadata, normalized ratios, and transcript availability', which hints at output traits, but does not cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. This is inadequate for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Inspect a single video') and adds qualifying details concisely. Every part earns its place by contributing to understanding the tool's scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, and output format, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively. The conciseness does not compensate for these omissions in a tool with multiple configuration options.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not explain any parameters (e.g., what 'videoIdOrUrl' accepts, what 'dryRun' does, or the effects of boolean flags). The mention of 'transcript availability' and 'normalized ratios' loosely relates to 'includeTranscriptMeta' and 'includeEngagementRatios', but lacks specifics, failing to add meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Inspect a single video' specifies the verb and resource, and 'with compact metadata, normalized ratios, and transcript availability' adds detail about the output. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'analyzeVideoSet' or 'inspectChannel', which could provide similar video-related insights.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and parameters alone. For example, it does not clarify if this is for quick checks versus deep analysis compared to siblings like 'analyzeVideoSet'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only mentions optional replies and provenance. It omits critical behavioral details like whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or what 'structured provenance' entails, leaving 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, return values, and error handling, making it incomplete for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter-specific information. It vaguely references 'optional replies and structured provenance', which loosely relates to parameters like 'includeReplies' but doesn't explain their semantics, defaults, or interactions, failing to address the 7 undocumented parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Read top-level comments') and the resource ('comments'), specifying optional features like replies and provenance. It distinguishes from siblings like 'searchComments' by focusing on reading rather than searching, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'importComments' or 'clearActiveCommentCollection'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'searchComments' or 'importComments'. The description implies usage for reading comments with optional structured data, but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs 'research', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like whether it's computationally intensive, has rate limits, requires authentication, or what the output format might be. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a 5-parameter tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It adequately states the purpose but lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, and expected outputs, which are essential for effective tool invocation in this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 5 parameters are documented in the schema. The description only mentions 'seed topic' implicitly, without explaining the roles of other parameters like 'regionCode', 'language', 'maxExamples', or 'dryRun'. It adds minimal semantic value beyond what's inferred from parameter names, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Research') and target resources ('title structures, keywords, and tag patterns'), and it identifies the scope ('around a seed topic'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'discoverNicheTrends' or 'exploreNicheCompetitors' that might involve similar research activities, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It mentions a 'seed topic' as required, but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions compared to sibling tools such as 'discoverNicheTrends' or 'exploreYouTube', leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'one-shot' processing and optional extensions, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether it's read-only or mutative, permission requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'core metadata' includes. The description is insufficient for a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality and optional extensions. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more specific about what 'core metadata' entails.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the output format, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For a tool that likely involves data processing and optional extensions, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description partially compensates by mentioning 'core metadata/transcript readiness' and optional 'comments, sentiment, and provenance', which maps to some parameters (includeComments, includeSentiment, includeTranscriptSummary). However, it doesn't explain 'videoIdOrUrl' format, 'commentSampleSize' purpose, or 'dryRun' behavior, leaving gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to build a video dossier with core metadata and transcript readiness, with optional extensions like comments and sentiment. It uses specific verbs ('build') and resources ('video dossier'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'inspectVideo' or 'analyzeVideoSet' which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions optional extensions but doesn't specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings like 'inspectVideo' (for basic metadata) or 'measureAudienceSentiment' (for sentiment analysis). Usage context is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It mentions 'expand' and 'downstream analysis', implying a read-only or processing operation, but doesn't disclose permissions, rate limits, whether it modifies data, or what the output looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and purpose, making it easy to scan and understand quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meanings, output format, and usage context. While concise, it doesn't provide enough information for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without guessing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter-specific information. It doesn't explain what 'playlistUrlOrId', 'maxVideos', 'includeVideoMeta', or 'dryRun' mean or how they affect the expansion. The baseline is 3 due to the coverage gap, but the description fails to provide meaningful semantic context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'expand' and resource 'playlist' into 'individual videos', specifying the purpose for 'downstream analysis and batch workflows'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'analyzePlaylist' or 'importPlaylist' by focusing on expansion rather than analysis or import, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. While 'downstream analysis and batch workflows' implies a context, there's no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or specific sibling tools to choose instead for different needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the method (Apple Vision image feature prints) and that it 'returns image-backed matches,' but lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, performance characteristics, error conditions, or authentication requirements. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second covers input/output basics. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating input and output details).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context, detailed parameter explanations, output format description, and usage guidelines. For a visual similarity search tool with multiple configuration options, this leaves too many unknowns for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (3 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The description adds minimal parameter semantics: it clarifies that inputs can be 'assetId or a direct framePath' and mentions 'similarity search,' but doesn't explain the purpose of videoIdOrUrl, maxResults, minSimilarity, or dryRun. With moderate schema coverage, the description provides some context but doesn't fully compensate for undocumented parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find frames that visually look like a reference frame using Apple Vision image feature prints.' It specifies the verb (find), resource (frames), and method (Apple Vision image feature prints). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'searchVisualContent' or 'extractKeyframes', which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It mentions 'returns image-backed matches' but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools available (e.g., searchVisualContent, extractKeyframes), the lack of comparative context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool lists data but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what the output format is, or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information without any unnecessary words. It directly communicates the tool's purpose in a clear and structured manner, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't provide enough context about the tool's behavior, output, or parameters to fully guide an AI agent, especially compared to sibling tools that might have overlapping functionalities.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention or explain the parameter 'includeVideoList'. Since the schema coverage is low, the description should compensate but fails to do so. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is slightly higher, but the lack of any parameter explanation keeps it at an average score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('List') and resources ('local comment collections, active search focus, and indexed comment counts'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'listCollections' or 'listChannelCatalog', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'listCollections' or 'searchComments', nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for usage. It merely states what the tool does without indicating appropriate scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions what information is shown (file paths, sizes, manifest metadata) which is helpful, but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior, performance characteristics, or authentication requirements. For a tool with no annotations, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured in two sentences. The first states the core purpose and filtering capabilities, the second specifies what information is returned. There's no wasted language, though it could be slightly more detailed given the lack of annotations and output schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a listing tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic but incomplete context. It covers the purpose and return information but lacks behavioral details, usage guidance, and comprehensive parameter context. The description is adequate as a starting point but leaves significant gaps that would hinder an agent's understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description adds value by mentioning filtering by 'video or kind' which aligns with the schema parameters, and specifies what information is returned. However, it doesn't provide additional context about parameter usage beyond what's in the schema descriptions. The baseline is appropriate given the partial schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List locally stored media assets' specifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on local assets rather than remote operations like 'downloadAsset' or 'removeMediaAsset'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'listCollections' or 'listCommentCollections' which also list things.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't explain when to choose this over other listing tools like 'listCollections' or when to use it versus search/analysis tools. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'recommend' and 'dryRun' parameter, suggesting non-destructive behavior, but doesn't clarify what 'recommend' entails (e.g., returns suggested time slots, confidence scores), whether it requires specific permissions, or how it handles errors. The dryRun parameter hints at preview functionality but isn't explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage (25%), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (recommendation format), how recommendations are generated, error conditions, or proper use of parameters like dryRun. The context demands more behavioral and output information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25% (only the timezone parameter has a description). The description mentions 'timezone' and implies 'recent publishing history' (relating to lookbackDays), adding some context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain the channelIdOrHandleOrUrl format or what dryRun actually does, leaving significant gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Recommend') and resource ('upload windows'), and specifies the data source ('from recent publishing history') and constraint ('for a given timezone'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyzeVideoSet' or 'inspectChannel' which might also involve channel analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. With many sibling tools involving channel/video analysis (e.g., 'inspectChannel', 'analyzeVideoSet', 'exploreYouTube'), there's no indication of when this specific recommendation tool is appropriate versus general analysis tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions deletion but doesn't specify if this action is reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects like affecting related data. This leaves critical behavioral traits unclear for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter guidance, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover important aspects like confirmation prompts, error handling, or what happens to associated data, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's full context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description doesn't add any semantic details about the 'collectionId' parameter, such as format or source. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the lack of any parameter-specific guidance reduces the score to 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a local comment collection and its search index'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'removeCollection' or 'clearActiveCommentCollection', which might handle similar resources differently.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'removeCollection' or 'clearActiveCommentCollection'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the collection must be inactive or if data loss is permanent, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions fetching and indexing comments but omits critical details: whether this is a read-only or write operation, what permissions are needed, how long indexing takes, error handling, or what happens to existing indexed data. The phrase 'import' implies data ingestion but lacks operational specifics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, though it could potentially benefit from slightly more detail given the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, side effects, or how the imported data persists. The mention of indexing for 'searchComments' hints at output but lacks concrete details about the resulting collection state or search readiness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 67% (6 of 9 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'video's comments' which aligns with the 'videoIdOrUrl' parameter but provides no additional context about parameter usage, relationships, or default behaviors not covered in schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Import a video's comments') and resource ('into the local comment knowledge base'), with explicit purpose ('for semantic search'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'searchComments' by explaining this tool prepares data for that search functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions the tool's relationship to 'searchComments' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'readComments' or 'listCommentCollections'. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions what the tool returns ('channel-level stats, top videos, and a landscape summary'), which is helpful, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and output, while the second provides usage context. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from output details).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters with 50% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the purpose and output types but lacks details on behavioral constraints, error handling, and parameter nuances. For a tool with this complexity, it should provide more context to be fully helpful to an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (2 out of 4 parameters have descriptions). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It implies the 'niche' parameter is central but doesn't explain semantics for 'regionCode', 'maxChannels', or 'dryRun'. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate for the gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Discover active channels in a niche by analyzing who ranks in YouTube search results.' It specifies the verb ('discover'), resource ('active channels'), and method ('analyzing YouTube search results'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'exploreYouTube' or 'discoverNicheTrends', which appear related.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage context: 'Useful for competitive reconnaissance before entering a niche.' This suggests when to use it (pre-entry analysis) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings. It lacks specific guidance on choosing this tool over similar ones like 'exploreYouTube' or 'discoverNicheTrends'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what information is listed but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, response format, or whether the operation is read-only or has side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the main purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's output, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format or operational constraints. It is minimally viable but incomplete for full contextual understanding, especially without annotations to fill gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter with 0% description coverage, but the tool has zero required parameters. The description does not mention the 'includeVideoList' parameter, but since no parameters are required and the schema is simple, the description adequately conveys the tool's core function without parameter details, compensating for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: listing local transcript collections, active search focus, and indexed video/chunk counts. It uses specific verbs ('list') and resources ('collections', 'focus', 'counts'), making the function unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'listChannelCatalog' or 'listCommentCollections', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools such as 'listChannelCatalog' or 'listCommentCollections', leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the tool deletes a collection and its index, implying a destructive operation, but does not cover permissions, reversibility, side effects, or error handling. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical aspects like confirmation prompts, success/failure responses, or dependencies, making it insufficient for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies the 'collectionId' parameter identifies the collection to delete, adding some meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not specify format, constraints, or examples, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the target ('a local transcript collection and its search index'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'removeCommentCollection' by specifying the type of collection being removed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'clearActiveCollection' or 'removeCommentCollection', nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions for use. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions ranked results and default collection usage, but lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if no collections exist. For a search tool with 6 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and well-structured: two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, output details, and default behavior. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, search functionality) and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers basic purpose and default behavior but misses important contextual details: expected return format beyond listed fields, error conditions, performance characteristics, and how results are ranked. The absence of output schema increases the need for more completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (2 of 6 parameters have descriptions), so the description must compensate. It adds some value by explaining the default behavior ('uses active comment collection by default') which relates to 'useActiveCollection' and 'collectionId' parameters. However, it doesn't clarify the meaning or usage of other parameters like 'minScore' or 'videoIdFilter,' leaving them largely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: searching imported comment collections with ranked results. It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('imported comment collections'), and key output details (author, like count, relevance score). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'searchTranscripts' or 'searchVisualContent' beyond mentioning 'comment collections'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context by mentioning 'uses active comment collection by default,' which implies when to use this vs. specifying a collectionId. However, it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'readComments' or 'listCommentCollections,' nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing imported collections first).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool clears the active comment collection, implying a mutation (destructive operation), but doesn't disclose behavioral details like whether this requires specific permissions, is reversible, affects existing data, or has side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly explains the tool's effect. It's front-loaded with the core action and outcome, with no unnecessary words or redundant information. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately explains what the tool does. However, as a mutation tool, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions, reversibility, or error conditions. The description is complete for a simple operation but could benefit from more context about its impact.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it doesn't contradict the schema. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the description appropriately focuses on purpose rather than inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Clear') and the target ('active comment collection'), explaining that it makes comment search fan out across all collections. It distinguishes from sibling 'clearActiveCollection' by specifying 'comment collection' versus general collection, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other comment-related tools like 'listCommentCollections' or 'removeCommentCollection'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you want to broaden comment search from a specific collection to all collections, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'setActiveCommentCollection' or 'removeCommentCollection'. It provides context but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool performs indexing (implying read/write operations), uses specific technologies (Apple Vision, Gemini), and returns 'frame evidence with local image paths'. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or side effects like file creation, which are important for a tool with 11 parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and technologies, followed by the return value. It's concise with two sentences, but could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating input and output aspects.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the purpose and return format, but lacks details on error handling, performance implications, or example use cases, leaving gaps for an agent to fully understand tool behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 73%, providing good baseline documentation. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, only implying that 'videoIdOrUrl' is the target and 'intervalSec'/'maxFrames' relate to frame sampling. It doesn't explain interactions between parameters like 'autoDownload' and 'downloadFormat', so it meets but doesn't exceed the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Build a real visual index for a video') and resources used ('using extracted frames, Apple Vision OCR, Apple Vision feature prints, and optional Gemini frame descriptions'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'extractKeyframes' or 'searchVisualContent' by focusing on comprehensive indexing rather than extraction or search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It mentions optional features like Gemini descriptions, but doesn't clarify scenarios where this tool is preferred over simpler siblings like 'extractKeyframes' or broader ones like 'buildVideoDossier'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions removal but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are required, if it affects related data, or what happens on failure. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second explains parameter usage. It is front-loaded and efficiently structured, making it easy to understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with 3 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects like side effects, error handling, or return values, which are crucial for safe invocation. The description should do more to compensate for the missing structured data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds marginal value by clarifying the mutual exclusivity of 'assetId' and 'videoIdOrUrl' (one vs. all assets), but it does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and resource ('stored media assets'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'listMediaAssets' (read) and 'downloadAsset' (retrieve). It specifies the scope of removal (single asset vs. all assets for a video), making the purpose explicit and differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by describing two scenarios (removing one asset vs. all for a video), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., no mention of prerequisites like asset existence or permissions) or when not to use it. It provides basic context but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a 'Set' operation, implying it's a mutation that changes system state, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, if changes are persistent, what happens on error, or if it affects other operations. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information: what the tool does and its context. There is no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (simple mutation with one parameter), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details like error handling or system impact. For a mutation tool, more completeness would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning beyond the input schema: it explains that 'collectionId' is used to set the default collection for transcript searches when omitted. The schema has 0% description coverage (no parameter descriptions), so the description compensates by clarifying the parameter's purpose. However, it doesn't specify the format or constraints of collectionId.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Set the default collection that transcript search should focus on when collectionId is omitted.' It specifies the verb ('Set'), the resource ('default collection'), and the context ('transcript search'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'setActiveCommentCollection', which appears to serve a similar purpose for comment collections.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool: when you want to set a default collection for transcript searches that omit collectionId. It provides some context but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like manually specifying collectionId in searches. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states the tool sets a default for searchComments, it doesn't describe what happens to the previous active collection, whether this change persists across sessions, if it requires specific permissions, or what the response looks like. For a configuration tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and usage context. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and has no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (configuration change with 1 parameter), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and its relationship to searchComments, but lacks details on behavior, parameter semantics, and output, leaving gaps for the agent to infer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's implied by the tool's purpose. The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the parameter 'collectionId' is undocumented. The description doesn't explain what a collectionId is, its format, or where to get valid values. However, with only 1 parameter, the baseline is higher than for tools with many undocumented parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Set the default comment collection that searchComments should focus on when collectionId is omitted.' It specifies the verb ('Set'), resource ('default comment collection'), and functional context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'setActiveCollection' or 'clearActiveCommentCollection', which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you want searchComments to focus on a specific collection by default. It mentions the alternative (omitting collectionId in searchComments) but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare it to similar tools like setActiveCollection or clearActiveCommentCollection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it describes what health aspects are checked, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it performs any system modifications, how long it takes to execute, or what format the health report takes. The description provides basic functional information but lacks operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Check health') and immediately specifies the scope and components being examined.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's diagnostic nature, no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what health aspects are checked. However, it doesn't explain what the health check returns (metrics format, success/failure indicators) or how to interpret results, which would be valuable for a diagnostic tool with no structured output documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and the schema fully documents this fact. No additional parameter information is needed or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Check health') and resource ('local media store'), with explicit details about what health aspects are examined (disk usage, asset counts, ffmpeg/yt-dlp availability). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'checkSystemHealth' by focusing specifically on media store components rather than general system health.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (monitoring media store status) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'checkSystemHealth' or 'listMediaAssets'. No guidance is provided about prerequisites, frequency, or specific scenarios requiring this health check.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 effectively describes the tool's outputs (e.g., momentum signals, saturation analysis) and data source ('YouTube search data'), and acknowledges limitations ('honest limitations disclosed'). However, it does not detail aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving some behavioral traits unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by specific outputs and context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficiently structured and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a good overview of purpose and outputs, but lacks details on parameter usage and behavioral constraints. It is complete enough for initial understanding but could benefit from more guidance on when and how to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 40% (2 out of 5 parameters have descriptions: 'niche' and 'regionCode'). The description does not add specific meaning to parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining 'dryRun' or 'lookbackDays' effects. With low coverage, the description does not fully compensate, but the baseline is adjusted due to the schema's partial documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Discover what's trending in a niche right now' with specific outputs like 'top-performing and recent videos, momentum signals, saturation analysis, content gap opportunities, keyword patterns, and format breakdown.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'exploreNicheCompetitors' or 'researchTagsAndTitles' by focusing on trend discovery rather than competitor analysis or tag research.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for trend discovery in a niche, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'exploreNicheCompetitors' or 'researchTagsAndTitles.' It mentions being 'grounded in YouTube search data,' which provides some context, but lacks clear exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behaviors: it uses specific AI technologies (Apple Vision OCR, Gemini), can auto-index videos if needed, and always returns frame/image evidence with timestamps. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, but provides substantial operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste. First sentence defines purpose and technologies, second sentence specifies output behavior. Every word adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex tool with 14 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides good purpose and behavioral context but lacks details about return format, error handling, or performance characteristics. It's adequate but leaves gaps given the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 36%, but the description compensates by explaining the core functionality (searching visual content) and mentioning auto-indexing behavior. While it doesn't detail individual parameters, it provides essential context about what the tool does with parameters like videoIdOrUrl and autoIndexIfNeeded.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches visual content of videos or indexed frame libraries using specific technologies (Apple Vision OCR, Gemini). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on visual content search rather than analysis, indexing, or text-based search tools like searchTranscripts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for visual content searches but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like findSimilarFrames or indexVisualContent. It mentions returning frame/image evidence with timestamps, which suggests use cases requiring visual proof, but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool changes search behavior ('fans back out across all collections'), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention side effects like whether this action is reversible, requires specific permissions, or affects other operations, leaving some gaps in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('clear the active collection') and immediately explains the outcome. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and impact, with no wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
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 largely complete—it explains what the tool does and its effect on transcript searches. However, it could be more complete by mentioning potential side effects or confirming it has no return value, though this is minor for such a straightforward tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's effect without redundant parameter details, aligning with the baseline for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('clear') and the target resource ('active collection'), and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying that this action causes 'transcript search fans back out across all collections'—differentiating it from tools like 'clearActiveCommentCollection' which likely affects comment searches instead.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool—when you want to broaden transcript searches from a specific collection to all collections. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'setActiveCollection' for narrowing searches), so it lacks full exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 effectively describes key behaviors: it downloads files to local storage, returns an asset manifest entry with file path, and explicitly states it does not perform visual indexing. It could improve by mentioning potential rate limits, authentication needs, or file overwriting behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by return value clarification and an important exclusion. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a download tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage of what the tool does, what it returns, and what it doesn't do. It could be more complete by mentioning potential errors (e.g., invalid URLs, size limits) or the format of the returned manifest, but it's substantially adequate for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Download a YouTube video, audio track, or thumbnail to local storage') and distinguishes it from siblings by explicitly stating what it does NOT do ('Does NOT perform visual indexing'). It identifies the resource (YouTube assets) and verb (download) with precision.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context about when to use this tool (for downloading assets to local storage) and explicitly excludes visual indexing. However, it doesn't mention when to use alternatives like 'listMediaAssets' for viewing existing assets or 'removeMediaAsset' for deletion, nor does it specify prerequisites like needing storage space.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 does well by explaining the tool's intelligent multi-query ranking, parallel enrichment, and automatic chart creation for benchmark data. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with critical usage instructions but becomes somewhat dense with multiple directives and mode explanations. While all sentences add value, the structure could be more streamlined with clearer separation between usage rules, mode descriptions, and depth explanations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex tool with 12 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description does well by explaining key behavioral aspects, usage patterns, and mode differences. It covers the tool's primary use cases and response characteristics, though it doesn't detail the exact return format or error scenarios that would be helpful given the complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 92% schema description coverage, the baseline would be 3, but the description adds significant value by explaining the practical meaning of 'specific' and 'explore' modes, the three depth levels, and the automatic chart creation behavior. It provides context that goes beyond the parameter descriptions in the schema, though it doesn't cover all 12 parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to search YouTube videos with intelligent multi-query ranking and parallel enrichment, returning ranked videos with transcript summaries and key moments. It specifically distinguishes this from web search for YouTube video discovery and from sibling tools by emphasizing it should be used FIRST for finding/discovering/exploring videos.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage instructions: 'ALWAYS use this tool FIRST when the user wants to find, discover, or explore YouTube videos' and 'Do NOT use web search for YouTube video discovery — use this tool instead.' It also offers guidance on when to use 'specific' vs 'explore' modes and different depth levels, creating clear boundaries for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 effectively describes key behavioral traits: the tool requires a pre-downloaded video asset, uses ffmpeg for processing, produces raw frame images (not analyzed content), and operates at regular intervals. It doesn't mention error handling, performance characteristics, or output format details, but covers the essential operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise with three sentences that each earn their place: first states the core functionality, second specifies the prerequisite, third clarifies what the tool does NOT do. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides good contextual completeness. It covers purpose, prerequisites, limitations, and behavioral context. The main gap is lack of information about return values (what 'produces raw frame images' means in practice), but otherwise it's quite complete for the tool's scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide usage examples). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('extract keyframe images'), resource ('from a locally downloaded video'), and method ('at regular intervals using ffmpeg'). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by stating 'Does NOT do visual search or classification' and references the prerequisite tool 'downloadAsset'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Requires the video to be downloaded first via downloadAsset' (prerequisite), 'Does NOT do visual search or classification' (when-not-to-use), and implies alternatives like 'findSimilarFrames' or 'searchVisualContent' for visual analysis. This gives clear context for when to use this tool versus others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![vidlens-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rajanrengasamy/vidlens-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rajanrengasamy/vidlens-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![vidlens-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rajanrengasamy/vidlens-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rajanrengasamy/vidlens-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/rajanrengasamy/vidlens-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server