download_tweet_video

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses dependencies (yt-dlp, ffmpeg), default paths, error conditions, and return fields. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but this is acceptable for a download tool.

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 with structured Args/Returns sections. It is not overly verbose, but some minor redundancy exists (e.g., repeating expected types). Overall, it is well-organized and fits within a few sentences.

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 has 3 parameters, an output schema, and external dependencies, the description covers all necessary aspects: parameter details, defaults, error cases, and return format. No gaps are present for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description compensates completely. It explains each parameter: tweet_id (numeric string or URL), output_dir (default path with fallback), and format (default and alternative with explanation of when ffmpeg is needed). This adds significant value over the schema.

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?

Description starts with 'Download video(s) attached to a tweet via yt-dlp', clearly stating the verb, resource, and method. This action is unique among sibling tools (no other download tool listed), so it is well-distinguished.

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?

Provides detailed parameter explanations, default behaviors, and requirements (ffmpeg). Error conditions are explicitly listed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, though alternatives are not obvious.

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