list_videos

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds high-value behavioral disclosure: URLs are short-lived presigned HTTPS links that expire in hours, must be fetched immediately, should not be stored, and can be refreshed by calling list_videos or get_video. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, all informative: purpose+filter, output hints, and URL lifetime warning. The most critical scoping fact is front-loaded, and no sentence is filler.

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 read-only list operation, the description covers the core behavior, the optional filter, output contents, and the ephemeral URL caveat. The output schema fills in return details. The only meaningful gap is the undocumented rationale parameter, which keeps this from being fully complete.

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?

group_id is well explained as an optional filter to a specific group. However, the second parameter, rationale, is completely unexplained in both the schema (0% coverage) and the description, so an agent cannot know what value to provide or why it exists. With such low schema coverage, the description needed to compensate for both parameters but covers only one.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'List all videos in your account' and immediately defines the optional group_id filter. It also previews output fields (upload status, indexed features), making the tool's scope unambiguous. The 'all videos' framing distinguishes it from singular or search-oriented siblings, even without naming them explicitly.

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?

It tells the agent exactly when to call this tool: for the full account inventory or a group-scoped list via group_id. It doesn't name alternatives or state when not to use it, and the only sibling referenced indirectly is get_video for refreshing URLs. This is clear context, but not full when/when-not coverage.

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