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. While it mentions outputs (themes, risk signals, quotes), it doesn't describe what 'heuristic' means operationally, whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens during a dry run. Significant behavioral context is missing.

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. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does, though it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from outputs.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It explains the high-level purpose but provides no parameter guidance, no behavioral context, no output format information, and no differentiation from sibling tools. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly.

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 0% schema description coverage and 5 parameters, the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'videoIdOrUrl' should contain, what 'sampleSize' controls, what the boolean flags do, or what 'dryRun' means. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 performs 'audience sentiment analysis from comments' with specific outputs (themes, risk signals, quote samples), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'searchComments' or 'readComments' that might also process comments.

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 like 'searchComments' or 'readComments'. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions that would help an agent choose between similar comment-processing tools.

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