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. It mentions what the tool returns ('channel-level stats, top videos, and a landscape summary'), which is helpful, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and output, while the second provides usage context. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from output 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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters with 50% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the purpose and output types but lacks details on behavioral constraints, error handling, and parameter nuances. For a tool with this complexity, it should provide more context to be fully helpful to an AI agent.

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 50% (2 out of 4 parameters have descriptions). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It implies the 'niche' parameter is central but doesn't explain semantics for 'regionCode', 'maxChannels', or 'dryRun'. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate for the 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: 'Discover active channels in a niche by analyzing who ranks in YouTube search results.' It specifies the verb ('discover'), resource ('active channels'), and method ('analyzing YouTube search results'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'exploreYouTube' or 'discoverNicheTrends', which appear related.

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 implied usage context: 'Useful for competitive reconnaissance before entering a niche.' This suggests when to use it (pre-entry analysis) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings. It lacks specific guidance on choosing this tool over similar ones like 'exploreYouTube' or 'discoverNicheTrends'.

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