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 'long-video safeguards' which hints at performance considerations, but doesn't describe what these safeguards entail, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens in different modes. The description is too vague about actual behavior beyond the basic operation.

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 functionality. Every phrase contributes meaning, though it could be more structured by separating mode options from safeguards. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 tool with 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return formats for different modes, error handling, performance characteristics, or how parameters interact. The 'long-video safeguards' hint is too vague to provide meaningful guidance for a complex tool.

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 for 8 parameters, the description fails to compensate adequately. It mentions 'summary, key moments, chapters, or paginated full mode' which partially explains the 'mode' parameter, but doesn't clarify the purpose of other parameters like 'chunkWindowSec', 'offset', 'limit', 'dryRun', or how 'language' interacts with transcript reading. The description adds minimal value beyond what the enum suggests.

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 verb ('Read') and resource ('transcript') with specific output modes (summary, key moments, chapters, full). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'searchTranscripts' by focusing on reading/retrieving rather than searching. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'inspectVideo' which might also provide transcript information.

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 mentions 'long-video safeguards' which implies a usage context for lengthy content, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'searchTranscripts' or 'inspectVideo'. No when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisite conditions are specified.

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