Twitch videos

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: a 1-credit cost with refunds on failure, a 50-video ceiling, and a note that results may be truncated (has_more, videos_fetched).

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then labeled Cost and Returns lines. No filler, and the two highest-value facts (cap and cost) are surfaced immediately.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return contract and does so thoroughly, including nullable fields and pagination-style flags. It stops short of describing error cases or auth requirements, which keeps it just below full completeness for an open-world read tool.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema documents type, limit, and username with examples. The description adds a constraint not present in the schema — the 'up to 50' cap on results — which materially informs how to set limit, plus the mapping of the three video kinds to the type parameter.

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?

States a specific verb-and-resource ('A Twitch channel's latest videos') and enumerates the covered video kinds (past broadcasts, highlights, uploads) plus the returned fields, which separates it from twitch_clips by content type. It does not explicitly name twitch_clips or twitch_channel as alternatives, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 implies the use case (fetch a channel's recent videos) but never says when to prefer this over twitch_channel or twitch_clips, nor any prerequisites. There are no exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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