VidLens

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the '[~instant]' performance characteristic and describes return values (file paths, sizes, manifest metadata), which is helpful. However, it lacks explicit safety disclosure (read-only status), error behavior, or pagination details despite having a 'limit' parameter.

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?

Extremely concise with zero wasted words. Front-loaded with the action verb. Four efficient fragments cover purpose, filtering, output fields, and performance. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a 3-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description adequately compensates by describing return values (file paths, sizes, metadata). However, gaps remain: the undocumented 'limit' parameter lacks explanation, and without annotations, the description should explicitly state this is a read-only/safe operation.

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 67% (limit parameter lacks description). Baseline score is 3. The description mentions 'Filter by video or kind,' which aligns with the two described parameters but adds no syntax details, format specifications, or explanation of the undocumented 'limit' parameter.

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') with clear resource ('locally stored media assets') and scope. It distinguishes from sibling 'downloadAsset' via the 'locally stored' qualifier and from 'removeMediaAsset' via the action verb. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from search/index siblings like 'searchVisualContent'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'downloadAsset' (fetch remote vs list local) or 'mediaStoreHealth'. The '[~instant]' tag implies performance characteristics but does not constitute usage guidelines or prerequisites.

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