VidLens

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It provides one behavioral trait (~instant speed) and summarizes the returned data scope, but lacks details on output format, pagination, or side effects that would help an agent interpret results.

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?

While the single-sentence structure is efficient and front-loaded, it is inappropriately terse given the complete lack of schema documentation for the parameter. The bracketed [~instant] notation is concise but cryptic.

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 zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain the parameter and output structure. It only partially fulfills this by listing conceptual return values while leaving the tool's configuration and exact return format undocumented.

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 for the includeVideoList boolean parameter, the description completely fails to compensate. It makes no mention of this parameter or how it modifies the output (presumably toggling video list inclusion in the response).

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 uses a specific verb (List) and clearly identifies the resource (comment collections), distinguishing it from the sibling listCollections tool. It also specifies the three elements returned (collections, active search focus, and indexed counts), providing concrete scope.

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 only a performance hint ([~instant]) but offers no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like searchComments or readComments, nor does it explain prerequisites or relationships to the 'active collection' concept implied by sibling tools.

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