tokportal_list_bundle_videos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds no additional behavioral details beyond stating the action. With annotations carrying the burden, a score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not contradict them and remains neutral.

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 of four words, front-loading the action and resource. It contains zero waste and efficiently conveys the core purpose. Every word 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, simple list operation, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but leaves ambiguity about the return structure. It does not clarify what a 'video slot' is or that the output is an array. The agent may need to infer from sibling tools like tokportal_add_video_slots. Additional detail on the return type would improve completeness.

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 100% (the only parameter 'id' is described as 'Bundle ID.'). The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema. Per guidelines, baseline 3 is correct when schema already documents parameters well.

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 'List bundle video slots' uses a specific verb (List) and resource (bundle video slots), clearly indicating it returns a list of video slots for a bundle. It distinguishes from siblings like tokportal_list_bundles (lists bundles) and tokportal_get_bundle_video (gets a single video), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or specify that it requires an existing bundle ID. An agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling context, which is insufficient for clear decision-making.

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