vidlens-mcp

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.