vidlens-mcp

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.