listChannelCatalog

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers limited behavioral insight. It mentions the output shape ('compact creator-analysis shape'), which adds some context, but fails to disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'dryRun' does. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 wasted verbiage, and it directly states the tool's function. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from output format, but overall it's appropriately concise.

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 (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks essential details: no explanation of return values or error behaviors, minimal parameter guidance, and insufficient behavioral context for safe invocation. The description alone is inadequate for an agent to use this tool effectively without external knowledge.

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 but adds no parameter-specific information. It doesn't explain what 'channelIdOrHandleOrUrl' accepts, the meaning of 'compact creator-analysis shape' in relation to parameters, or clarify parameter interactions (e.g., 'includeShorts' vs 'includeLongForm'). With 7 undocumented parameters, the description fails to provide necessary semantic context.

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 ('List') and resource ('a channel's recent catalog'), specifying the output format ('compact creator-analysis shape'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'inspectChannel' or 'analyzeVideoSet' by focusing on catalog listing rather than detailed inspection or analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'findVideos' or other listing tools, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage for recent catalog listing in a specific format, but doesn't mention when not to use it or name sibling alternatives like 'findVideos' or 'inspectChannel' for different needs. This leaves the agent with minimal contextual direction.

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