VidLens

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

Discloses critical traits: 'heuristic' nature (non-deterministic), approximate runtime, and specific output components. However, with no annotations provided, it omits safety context like whether it consumes API quota, caches results, or fails gracefully.

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 compact single sentence with bracketed latency annotation. No redundant words. However, the brevity is excessive given the complete absence of schema documentation—additional parameter guidance is needed here.

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?

Moderately complex tool (NLP analysis) with no output schema and no annotations. While it lists output categories, it lacks error handling details, data scope (all comments vs. sampled?), or prerequisites (e.g., imported comments required). Insufficient for safe invocation without trial-and-error.

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 partially compensates by implying 'themes' and 'quote samples' map to boolean flags. However, it fails to explain 'videoIdOrUrl' format expectations, 'sampleSize' defaults/behavior, or 'dryRun' purpose, leaving 3/5 parameters semantically undefined.

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?

States specific function (heuristic sentiment analysis from comments) and key outputs (themes, risk signals, quotes). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'readComments' (raw retrieval) or 'analyzeVideoSet' (broader analysis), leaving selection ambiguous.

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 only a latency hint ([~3-10s]) but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. Doesn't clarify when to use this vs. 'searchComments' for filtering or 'readComments' for raw data access.

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