vidlens-mcp

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.