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 states the tool performs 'research', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like whether it's computationally intensive, has rate limits, requires authentication, or what the output format might be. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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 without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 of a 5-parameter tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It adequately states the purpose but lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, and expected outputs, which are essential for effective tool invocation in this context.

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%, meaning none of the 5 parameters are documented in the schema. The description only mentions 'seed topic' implicitly, without explaining the roles of other parameters like 'regionCode', 'language', 'maxExamples', or 'dryRun'. It adds minimal semantic value beyond what's inferred from parameter names, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 ('Research') and target resources ('title structures, keywords, and tag patterns'), and it identifies the scope ('around a seed topic'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'discoverNicheTrends' or 'exploreNicheCompetitors' that might involve similar research activities, which prevents a perfect score.

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 mentions a 'seed topic' as required, but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions compared to sibling tools such as 'discoverNicheTrends' or 'exploreYouTube', leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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