demo_vid_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for transparency. It discloses that the tool scans a local directory for .mp4 files, implying file-system access and a non-destructive read operation. However, it does not mention edge cases like empty directories, missing directory, or performance implications of scanning (e.g., large directories).

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 concise and well-structured, with 4 sentences plus a code block for the return format and examples. The key action ('List produced demo videos') is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value—detailing the scanning source, metadata, return format, and usage examples. No fluff.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema provided), the description covers the core functionality well. The return format and example usage are included, which compensates for the lack of annotations. However, it could briefly mention that the tool only lists already-existing videos (distinguishing from demo_vid_generate) and note potential issues like large directories.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a single parameter (repo) described as 'Filter by repo name (optional).' The description's examples show usage with and without repo, adding implicit meaning that filtering is optional. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not add significant semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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 that the tool lists produced demo videos with metadata, specifying the source as the local data/videos/ directory for .mp4 files. It distinguishes itself from siblings like demo_vid_generate (which likely creates) and demo_vid_help (which likely provides assistance), though not explicitly naming alternatives.

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?

While the description explains what the tool does and provides an example for optional filtering by repo, it does not guide when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., when to call demo_vid_list vs demo_vid_script_draft or demo_vid_generate). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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