vidlens-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'returns compact ranked results with provenance and engagement hints' which provides some output behavior, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with the dryRun parameter. For a search tool with 9 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 at just two clauses, front-loading the core purpose ('Search YouTube videos by intent') followed by the return format. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or wasted text. The structure moves logically from action to outcome.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavioral characteristics, leaves most parameters semantically unclear, and while it mentions the return format ('compact ranked results with provenance and engagement hints'), it doesn't fully describe what those terms mean or the structure of results. For a search tool in a crowded sibling space, more context is needed.

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 only 11% (just the 'query' parameter has a description), leaving 8 parameters undocumented in the schema. The description doesn't compensate by explaining any parameters beyond what's implied by 'search YouTube videos by intent' for the query. It doesn't clarify what 'by intent' means operationally or explain parameters like regionCode, dryRun, or duration enums.

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: 'Search YouTube videos by intent' specifies the verb (search) and resource (YouTube videos), with the 'by intent' qualifier adding nuance. It distinguishes from siblings like 'exploreYouTube' or 'searchComments' by focusing on video search with ranking. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'searchVisualContent' or 'findSimilarFrames' which might have overlapping functions.

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. With many sibling tools like 'exploreYouTube', 'searchVisualContent', and 'findSimilarFrames', there's no indication of when this specific video search tool is appropriate versus those other search/discovery tools. The description mentions 'compact ranked results' but doesn't explain when that format is preferable.

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