vidlens-mcp

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.