list_liked_videos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully states that returns are standard watch URLs and references the playlist ID 'LL'. However, it does not clarify authentication expectations, pagination behavior, or explicitly frame the operation as read-only, leaving a moderate transparency gap.

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 concise, using two short sentences. The core action is front-loaded, and the return format is stated without excessive detail or filler.

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 simple one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential operating context: the exact playlist and the URL format of the returned items. Minor missing context like auth requirements is not enough to make the definition incomplete.

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%, so maxResults is fully documented in the schema, including its default and bounds. The description adds nothing about the parameter, but this is acceptable since the structured schema carries the information.

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 clearly identifies the verb (List), the specific resource (the user's Liked Videos playlist with the 'LL' playlist ID), and the return type (watch URLs). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the purpose itself is 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 implies when to use it: when the user wants to retrieve their own liked videos. It does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like list_playlist or list_subscriptions, leaving some selection reasoning to the agent.

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