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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.