summarize_video

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get a comprehensive summary' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify what 'comprehensive' includes (e.g., transcript analysis, key points, duration), whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first states what the tool does, and the Args section provides necessary parameter details without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters.

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 moderate complexity (summarizing video content), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details about the summary format, potential limitations (e.g., video length constraints), or how it differs from sibling tools. This leaves the agent with incomplete context for optimal usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining both parameters in the Args section: 'video_id' is clearly identified as a YouTube video ID, and 'include_comments' is explained with its default value and purpose. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format details for the video_id.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('comprehensive summary of a YouTube video'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_video_info' or 'generate_video_flashcards', which might also provide video-related information in different formats.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_video_info' (likely providing raw metadata), 'generate_video_flashcards' (creating study aids), and 'get_video_comments_tool' (fetching comments), there's no indication of when a summary is preferred over these other options.

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