tokportal_get_bundle_video

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

The description aligns with annotations: 'readOnlyHint': true and 'destructiveHint': false confirm it's a safe read operation, and 'idempotentHint': true is consistent. The description adds minimal behavioral context (e.g., it retrieves configuration), but annotations already cover safety and idempotency, so the burden is low. No contradictions are present.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words: 'Get video slot configuration.' It is fully front-loaded and efficiently communicates the tool's core action. Every character 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?

With no output schema and a simple read operation, the description sufficiently covers the input (via schema) and purpose. However, it lacks any detail about return values (e.g., the structure of the configuration), which would help an agent anticipate results. For a read tool with no output schema, this is a moderate gap.

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 coverage is 100%, meaning both 'id' and 'position' have descriptions in the schema. The description does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'Bundle ID' and '1-based video slot position' are already clear). A baseline of 3 is appropriate because the description provides no additional parameter insight.

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 'Get video slot configuration' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('video slot configuration'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tokportal_configure_bundle_video or tokportal_list_bundle_videos. However, it lacks details on what the configuration contains (e.g., properties, timing) and doesn't mention the bundle context, making it slightly vague for an API-focused agent.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tokportal_list_bundle_videos (which lists slots) or tokportal_configure_bundle_video (which modifies). The description implies a read operation, but it doesn't explain prerequisites (e.g., requires a bundle ID) or post-conditions. Without exclusions or alternatives, the agent may misuse it.

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