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 hints at read-only behavior ('inspect') but doesn't explicitly state whether it's safe, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on failure. The mention of 'dryRun' in the schema suggests potential side effects, but the description doesn't clarify this.

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 purpose. There's no fluff or redundancy. However, it could be more structured by explicitly 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, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and two parameters (one optional with unclear semantics), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication, error handling, return format, and parameter usage, making it inadequate for reliable tool invocation.

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 for undocumented parameters. It adds no information about 'channelIdOrHandleOrUrl' (e.g., format, examples) or 'dryRun' (e.g., purpose, default behavior). The description only vaguely relates to parameters via 'inspect a channel', leaving semantics unclear.

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 action ('inspect') and the resource ('a channel'), and specifies what information is returned ('summary stats and posting cadence heuristics'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'listChannelCatalog' or 'exploreYouTube' by focusing on detailed analysis rather than listing or exploration. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'inspectVideo' in terms of scope.

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 (e.g., channel must exist), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'inspectVideo' or 'listChannelCatalog'. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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