VidLens

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

Strong behavioral disclosure given zero annotations: specifies exact diagnostic areas (transcript availability, sparse-transcript warnings, yt-dlp/API issues) and provides latency estimate [~1-3s]. Missing only side-effect disclosure (caching, quotas) and read-only vs. destructive classification.

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?

Perfectly efficient single-sentence structure. Front-loaded purpose ('Diagnose whether a video is importable') followed by specific scope details and timing metadata. Every clause earns its place with zero redundancy.

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?

Adequate for a diagnostic tool: covers inspection criteria and timing. However, incomplete due to missing parameter documentation (critical given 0% schema coverage) and no indication of return structure despite complex failure modes (yt-dlp errors, sparse transcripts).

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 coverage, the description fails to document 2 of 3 parameters (language, dryRun). Only implicitly references videoIdOrUrl via 'whether a video is importable'. Language parameter ambiguity (video language vs. transcript language?) is unresolved.

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?

Excellent specificity with 'Diagnose' verb, 'video' resource, and clear scope ('importable'). Distinguishes effectively from siblings like importVideos (which performs the actual import) and inspectVideo (general metadata) by specifying import-blocker diagnostics (yt-dlp/API issues, sparse transcripts).

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 implied usage context by detailing what it diagnoses (transcript availability, API issues), suggesting use before importing. However, lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus inspectVideo or analyzeVideoSet, and doesn't state prerequisites or when-not-to-use conditions.

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