VidLens

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the compact nature of returned data and the ~1-3s latency. However, it fails to clarify the safety profile (the presence of a 'dryRun' parameter suggests potential side effects or costs, but this is unexplained) or pagination/error behaviors.

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 extremely concise with zero waste—one sentence delivering the core value proposition and a bracketed timing annotation. Information is appropriately front-loaded.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It hints at the purpose of 2 boolean flags but leaves the identifier format and dryRun behavior undocumented, and provides no indication of the return structure despite the lack of output schema.

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 description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to fully compensate. While 'normalized ratios' and 'transcript availability' implicitly map to includeEngagementRatios and includeTranscriptMeta, the description omits the videoIdOrUrl format expectations and provides no guidance on the dryRun parameter's function.

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 provides a specific verb ('Inspect'), resource ('video'), and clear scope ('single video', 'compact metadata'), which distinguishes it from bulk siblings like analyzeVideoSet and inspectChannel. However, it does not explicitly contrast with these siblings or explain the inspect-vs-analyze distinction.

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 '[~1-3s]' timing hint provides implicit guidance about latency expectations, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., video ID format), and no comparison to alternatives like readTranscript or buildVideoDossier.

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