vidlens-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions comparing performance and suggesting a format mix, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data sources, or whether it's a read-only or mutative operation. For a tool with three parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 functionality without unnecessary words. It directly states the action and outcome, making it easy to understand at a glance. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.

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 (comparing performance and suggesting mixes), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'performance' metrics are used, how the suggestion is derived, or what the output might look like. For a tool with three parameters and analytical output, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description doesn't add any semantic details about the parameters (channelIdOrHandleOrUrl, lookbackDays, dryRun), such as what formats are accepted for the channel identifier, the default or typical value for lookbackDays, or what dryRun entails. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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: 'Compare recent Shorts vs long-form performance for a channel and suggest a format mix.' It specifies the verb ('compare'), resource ('Shorts vs long-form performance for a channel'), and outcome ('suggest a format mix'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyzeVideoSet' or 'inspectChannel', which might also involve channel analysis, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools such as 'analyzeVideoSet' or 'inspectChannel', which could overlap in functionality. Without such context, users might struggle to select the appropriate tool for their needs.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.