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 'recommend' and 'dryRun' parameter, suggesting non-destructive behavior, but doesn't clarify what 'recommend' entails (e.g., returns suggested time slots, confidence scores), whether it requires specific permissions, or how it handles errors. The dryRun parameter hints at preview functionality but isn't explained.

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 meaning without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage (25%), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (recommendation format), how recommendations are generated, error conditions, or proper use of parameters like dryRun. The context demands more behavioral and output information.

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 only 25% (only the timezone parameter has a description). The description mentions 'timezone' and implies 'recent publishing history' (relating to lookbackDays), adding some context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain the channelIdOrHandleOrUrl format or what dryRun actually does, leaving significant gaps.

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 with a specific verb ('Recommend') and resource ('upload windows'), and specifies the data source ('from recent publishing history') and constraint ('for a given timezone'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyzeVideoSet' or 'inspectChannel' which might also involve channel analysis.

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. With many sibling tools involving channel/video analysis (e.g., 'inspectChannel', 'analyzeVideoSet', 'exploreYouTube'), there's no indication of when this specific recommendation tool is appropriate versus general analysis tools.

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