list_videos

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: results are cached, refresh=true bypasses the cache, and the data comes from the uploads playlist. This goes beyond the structured annotation without contradicting it.

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 efficient sentence: it front-loads the purpose and output fields, then adds the caching note and parameter behavior. Every phrase contributes useful information with no 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 list tool with one optional parameter, the description is complete: it names the exact fields returned, identifies the data source, and explains the cache behavior. The output schema is absent, so the field list in the description adequately compensates.

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%, so the description carries the full burden for the only parameter, refresh. It explicitly explains that passing refresh=true bypasses the cache, which gives the agent actionable semantics beyond the raw boolean 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 states a specific verb ('list') and resource ('videos'), and further specifies the scope ('every uploaded video') and return fields (id, title, publish date, ISO-8601 duration). It is immediately clear what this tool does and how it differs from channel-level metric siblings.

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 phrase 'every uploaded video' makes the primary use case explicit: retrieve the complete set of uploaded videos. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or exclusion criteria, but the video-listing scope is clear enough that an agent would not confuse it with channel metrics or retention curves.

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