vidlens-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by explaining the tool's intelligent multi-query ranking, parallel enrichment, and automatic chart creation for benchmark data. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 front-loaded with critical usage instructions but becomes somewhat dense with multiple directives and mode explanations. While all sentences add value, the structure could be more streamlined with clearer separation between usage rules, mode descriptions, and depth explanations.

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 complex tool with 12 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description does well by explaining key behavioral aspects, usage patterns, and mode differences. It covers the tool's primary use cases and response characteristics, though it doesn't detail the exact return format or error scenarios that would be helpful given the complexity.

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?

With 92% schema description coverage, the baseline would be 3, but the description adds significant value by explaining the practical meaning of 'specific' and 'explore' modes, the three depth levels, and the automatic chart creation behavior. It provides context that goes beyond the parameter descriptions in the schema, though it doesn't cover all 12 parameters.

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 search YouTube videos with intelligent multi-query ranking and parallel enrichment, returning ranked videos with transcript summaries and key moments. It specifically distinguishes this from web search for YouTube video discovery and from sibling tools by emphasizing it should be used FIRST for finding/discovering/exploring videos.

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 explicit usage instructions: 'ALWAYS use this tool FIRST when the user wants to find, discover, or explore YouTube videos' and 'Do NOT use web search for YouTube video discovery — use this tool instead.' It also offers guidance on when to use 'specific' vs 'explore' modes and different depth levels, creating clear boundaries for tool selection.

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