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 'compact metadata, normalized ratios, and transcript availability', which hints at output traits, but does not cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. This is inadequate for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Inspect a single video') and adds qualifying details concisely. Every part earns its place by contributing to understanding the tool's scope.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, and output format, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively. The conciseness does not compensate for these omissions in a tool with multiple configuration options.

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 does not explain any parameters (e.g., what 'videoIdOrUrl' accepts, what 'dryRun' does, or the effects of boolean flags). The mention of 'transcript availability' and 'normalized ratios' loosely relates to 'includeTranscriptMeta' and 'includeEngagementRatios', but lacks specifics, failing to add meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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: 'Inspect a single video' specifies the verb and resource, and 'with compact metadata, normalized ratios, and transcript availability' adds detail about the output. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'analyzeVideoSet' or 'inspectChannel', which could provide similar video-related insights.

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 does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and parameters alone. For example, it does not clarify if this is for quick checks versus deep analysis compared to siblings like 'analyzeVideoSet'.

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