get_shows_by_id_videos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the description does not need to restate safety. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond the endpoint, such as pagination, sorting, size limits, or that it returns video metadata rather than files. No contradiction with 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?

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded with 'Get all videos,' but it is too sparse. It includes the endpoint as a code line, which is helpful, yet there is no logical structure beyond that. It is not bloated, but it lacks necessary details to be considered 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 tool complexity (a simple GET with one param) and that an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. However, it fails to clarify what 'all videos' means, any default ordering or pagination, and does not explicitly tie the 'resource' to a show. The agent must rely on the name and endpoint to infer 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?

The schema has zero coverage for parameter descriptions, so the description compensates by explaining 'id' as 'The id/slug of the resource.' This adds meaningful context (allowing slug input) beyond the bare schema type. For a single parameter, this is sufficient.

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 states 'Get all videos' which is a clear verb+resource, but it is generic and does not explicitly mention the resource type (show) except through the endpoint path. It fails to distinguish this from sibling tools like get_movies_by_id_videos or get_episodes_by_id_videos, which are similarly named.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of which resource types (shows) it applies to. The description does not state any exclusions or conditions for selection, leaving the agent to infer from the name.

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