list_video_sources

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Never calls Gemini', which is useful but insufficient. No mention of read-only nature, caching behavior, or performance implications.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose and a key behavioral note. However, it sacrifices valuable detail that could be added without significant bloat.

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 has 2 parameters, an output schema, and many siblings, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what constitutes a 'cached video source', how the filter works, or how the output relates to sibling tools like 'analyze_video' or 'get_video_frame'.

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 0%, and the description provides no details about the two parameters ('limit', 'filter_text'). Their names and defaults are self-explanatory, but the agent lacks format, meaning, or usage hints beyond the raw schema.

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 states the tool lists 'cached video sources, contexts, and assets', specifying the verb 'list' and resource type. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_video_contexts' by mentioning cache and contexts/assets, but overlap remains.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as 'list_video_contexts' or 'get_video_evidence_asset'. The description does not indicate how it complements or differs from other list operations.

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