tokportal_get_bundle_video

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

Annotations declare this tool is read-only (readOnlyHint: true), idempotent, and non-destructive. The description simply restates this as 'Get...', which aligns but adds no additional context beyond the annotations. For a tool inferred to be read-only from the name and annotations, this is adequate. However, the description does not disclose if the returned 'video slot configuration' is a simple value, object, or list, or if there are side-effects like recording access.

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, short sentence 'Get video slot configuration.' which is concise but lacks structure. It front-loads the verb 'Get' which is good, but the brevity comes at the cost of clarity. There is no wasted text, but the sentence feels incomplete and could benefit from adding context about the bundle binding without being verbose.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should clarify what is returned by this configuration retrieval. The tool has 2 required parameters and many siblings, so a bit more context is needed for an agent to use it correctly. The description does not explain the concept of a 'video slot' or how it relates to a 'bundle', leaving the agent to infer from the parameter names.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both parameters: 'Bundle ID.' (UUID format) and '1-based video slot position.' (integer, minimum 1). The description adds no further semantic meaning beyond what is already in the schema. The context signals indicate schema coverage is high, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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' is vague. While it conveys a read operation on a 'video slot configuration', it fails to specify that this configuration is scoped to a bundle and the role of the 'id' and 'position' parameters, which is crucial for understanding the tool's resource. This vagueness makes it hard to distinguish from the many sibling tools like 'tokportal_configure_bundle_video' which modifies a similar resource or 'tokportal_list_bundle_videos' which returns a list.

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 its siblings. For example, an agent could confuse this tool with 'tokportal_list_bundle_videos' (which lists videos in a bundle) or 'tokportal_configure_bundle_video' (which modifies a single video slot). The readOnlyHint annotation implies it is safe to call anytime, but the description does not clarify this or give any context on preconditions.

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