Vivu

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, meaning this is a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds no further context about side effects, such as whether the project is created in a default workspace or if it triggers any notifications. Since there is an output schema, the response format is likely clear. However, the description does not disclose any potential side effects or required permissions, though the openWorldHint=true suggests it may operate in an open environment, so the lack of detail is acceptable.

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 concise sentence that effectively communicates the purpose. It is front-loaded with the essential information and contains no extraneous details. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is appropriately sized.

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?

The description is sufficient for the simple create operation, especially with a rich input schema (100% coverage) and an output schema. It covers the core purpose. However, it could benefit from a note on what happens after creation (e.g., project becomes visible immediately) but given the schema and annotations, it is largely complete. The missing information is minor and does not impede correct usage.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (name, visibility, description) are already documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond 'cloud video project', which is generic. It doesn't clarify the distinction between visibility options, but the schema already does that. Thus, the description provides minimal added value for parameters, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 'Create a cloud video project' clearly states the verb 'create' and the resource 'video project'. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like vivu_list_projects or vivu_get_account, which are about listing or retrieving. The context of 'cloud' clarifies it's a cloud-based project, aligning with the tool's purpose.

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 indicates when to use the tool (when creating a new project), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for related actions like editing or deleting. However, the sibling list provides context, and the action is unambiguous. The description could mention that it is only for project creation, and not for updating or deleting projects, but the verb 'create' inherently implies this.

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

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral information beyond the annotations by emphasizing permanence ('Permanently') and cascading scope ('and its videos'). This complements destructiveHint=true and helps an agent understand the irreversible impact, even though it does not discuss permissions or return behavior.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key facts: permanence, the deleted resource, and the cascade to videos.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what will be deleted and that the action is permanent, leaving no critical gaps for correct invocation.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter project_id, including a minLength constraint and a description. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics, but the schema carries the burden adequately.

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 names a specific action ('Permanently delete') and a specific resource ('a project and its videos'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like vivu_delete_video and vivu_create_project. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and what its scope is without opening the schema.

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 clear context: use this tool when you want to delete an entire project along with its videos. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the wording makes the intended use obvious relative to sibling deletion tools.

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

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

The description aligns with annotations (destructiveHint=true) and adds the word 'Permanently,' which reinforces irreversible deletion. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as cascading effects, revocability, permission requirements, or effects on other resources. Annotations already carry the safety profile, so the description adds only a small increment of transparency.

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 concise sentence with no fluff and is front-loaded with the action. It could be slightly more informative (e.g., noting irreversibility or usage context), but it is appropriately sized for a simple deletion tool.

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 this is a simple two-parameter deletion tool, the schema fully documents parameters and an output schema exists. The description conveys the core purpose and permanent nature, and annotations handle destructive/idempotent behavior. The absence of error-handling notes or prerequisites is minor for this complexity level.

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 the baseline is 3. The parameters `project_id` and `video_id` already have clear descriptions in the schema, and the tool description contributes very little parameter-specific meaning beyond 'from a project,' which is already implied by `project_id`.

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 and resource: 'Permanently delete a video from a project.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling `vivu_delete_project` and other video/list operations. The phrasing is unambiguous about the resource being a video within a project.

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 or when to prefer alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or distinguish itself from `vivu_delete_project`. An agent must rely on the tool name/context rather than an explicit usage contract.

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

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 safety profile is fully covered. The description adds modest scoping context ('connected to this assistant') but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error conditions or authentication specifics.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence contains all essential information with zero waste. It states the action, resource, and scope in a compact form that is immediately parseable.

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 parameterless read-only tool with a full output schema and clear annotations, the description is complete. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or understand this tool is missing.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the schema leaves nothing undocumented. The rubric assigns a baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters, and the description appropriately avoids inventing parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('Vivu account connected to this assistant'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like vivu_create_project or vivu_list_videos. There is no ambiguity about what is retrieved.

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 'connected to this assistant' establishes when this tool is relevant: when the agent needs the current account context. No alternative account-related siblings exist, so exclusion guidance is unnecessary; the usage context is clear.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing that the tool waits for completion and only returns final results when ready, which is not visible in the annotations or schema.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the two key behaviors—waiting and returning final results—with no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail. 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?

With an output schema present and a single fully described required parameter, the description need not explain return values. The wait-for-results behavior, combined with the safety annotations and clear schema, gives the agent everything needed to call the tool correctly.

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%, and the job_id parameter already has a clear description ('Search identifier returned by the search tool'). The tool description does not add new semantic detail beyond the schema, so the 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 uses a specific verb phrase, 'Wait for a pending video search and return its final results,' which clearly identifies both the operation and the resource. It distinguishes this tool from vivu_search_videos by focusing on retrieving completed results rather than initiating a search.

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 'pending video search' and the job_id schema description ('Search identifier returned by the search tool') clearly imply this is called after a search has been launched. It communicates when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name vivu_search_videos as the alternative or state when not to use it.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it reads a 'saved overview' and optional 'timestamped section summaries', which hints at the content but not additional behavioral details like pagination or error conditions. With annotations covering the core behavior, the description provides marginal extra context.

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 two sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the use case is provided succinctly. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and when to call it.

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 that the tool has an output schema and the annotations cover safety, the description is sufficient for a simple read operation. It states what the tool does and when to use it, and the parameter semantics are fully in the schema. Nothing critical for calling the tool correctly is missing, though it doesn't explicitly mention potential edge cases like missing summaries.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema fully documents all seven parameters. The description adds a minor semantic by mentioning 'optional timestamped section summaries' which maps to include_segments, but this is not essential beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Read a video's saved overview and optional timestamped section summaries') and the specific resource (video summary). It provides a clear use case ('Use this when asked what a video is about.'), but it does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools like vivu_get_search_results or vivu_search_videos, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 gives a clear condition for use ('when asked what a video is about'), which effectively guides an agent toward this tool for that scenario. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it's not as explicit as a fully differentiated usage guide.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds meaningful behavioral context by clarifying that results are scoped to the signed-in user's available projects, which is not present in the annotations. It does not discuss pagination or ordering, but the burden is lower given the annotations and output schema.

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 one compact sentence that states the action, the resource, and the scope with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and every word contributes useful meaning.

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 zero-parameter list tool with a rich set of annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential selection criteria and user scope. Nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing, and the sibling distinctions are clear enough from the resource term.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description has no need to explain parameter meanings, and the schema confirms no parameters are expected. This is appropriate and complete for a parameterless list operation.

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 uses the specific verb "List" with a clear resource, "video projects," and scopes it to "the signed-in user." It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like vivu_list_videos because it names a different resource type. No ambiguity remains about what the tool does.

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 conveys a clear context: list the projects available to the signed-in user. However, it offers no explicit guidance about when to choose this over closely related siblings such as vivu_list_videos or vivu_search_videos, and it does not state any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than directly instructed.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the project scope and indexing-status output, but does not disclose limits, ordering, or filtering behavior; with annotations carrying the main burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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 with no filler. The core operation and output focus are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 one-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It could clarify whether all videos are returned at once or note when to prefer vivu_search_videos, but these are minor gaps given the available structured context.

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 only parameter, project_id, is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description's phrase 'in a cloud project' lightly reinforces the parameter's role, but it does not add substantive semantics beyond the schema's own description.

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 a specific operation ('List'), a resource ('videos'), and a distinguishing detail ('indexing status') scoped to a cloud project. It is concrete and not a tautology, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like vivu_search_videos or vivu_get_video_summary, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 usage: call this to list videos in a project. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over vivu_search_videos or vivu_get_video_summary, and it offers no exclusions or alternative routing.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context: it returns a 'secure' browser page, implying an authenticated/HTTPS URL rather than performing the upload. It does not contradict annotations, and it clarifies that the tool is a retrieval operation, adding value beyond the structured hints.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes: 'Get' states the action, 'secure browser page' conveys the output type, 'for uploading videos' states the purpose, and 'to a project' specifies the target. Perfectly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter) and has an output schema (not shown). The description covers the core purpose and hints at the nature of the return value. It does not explicitly mention that the output is a URL to open in a browser, but the phrase 'browser page' implies that. Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the only parameter, project_id, is fully described in the schema as 'Project to upload videos to.' The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter. According to the rubric, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed that.

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 clear verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('a secure browser page for uploading videos to a project'). It unambiguously distinguishes this from sibling tools (create/delete/list/search) which handle different actions. No confusion about what the tool accomplishes.

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 you need to upload videos to a project) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state exclusions. Since none of the siblings perform uploading, the context is fairly clear, but it does not explicitly say 'use this when you want to initiate an upload' or mention that it only provides a page, not the upload itself.

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

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

The description simply says 'Search', implying a read-like operation, but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, suggesting possible side effects. It also does not disclose whether the search is synchronous, whether it creates a search job, or how it relates to vivu_get_search_results. This opacity is a notable gap for a non-readOnly tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is concise, though it is perhaps too terse to fully compensate for missing behavioral and usage context.

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 moderately complex tool with a rich schema and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits any relationship to vivu_get_search_results and does not explain the search workflow, which leaves an agent guessing about sequencing and optional follow-up calls.

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?

All four parameters already have descriptions in the input schema, so the schema carries the semantic weight. The tool description adds no additional meaning about project_id, query, mode, or maximum_results, which keeps this at the baseline 3.

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 clear action ('Search'), a resource ('a cloud video project'), and an intended outcome ('matching moments'). It is specific enough to distinguish from create/delete/list siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from vivu_get_search_results, which could be a closely related retrieval operation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, especially vivu_get_search_results. The description does not mention prerequisites, whether results are returned directly, or whether a separate retrieval step is needed after searching.

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