Transloadit Media Processing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions optional upload and waiting, but omits resumption semantics, side effects, authentication needs, idempotency, or what happens to an existing assembly when resuming.

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. It is concise and easy to parse, though it is arguably too sparse for a 10-parameter tool; the conciseness itself is good, but it sacrifices necessary detail.

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 high complexity (10 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, 0% schema coverage), the description is far from complete. It does not explain how to resume via assembly_url, how to provide instructions, what upload_behavior values mean, or how timeout/concurrency parameters interact. The output schema helps with return values but not with invocation 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only vaguely alludes to 'uploading files' and 'waiting for completion.' It does not explain assembly_url, instructions, fields, upload_behavior, wait_timeout_ms, expected_uploads, upload_chunk_size, upload_concurrency, or wait_for_completion, leaving most parameters semantically opaque.

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-resource pair ('Create or resume an Assembly') and adds optional behaviors ('uploading files and waiting for completion'). It clearly identifies the tool's core action and distinguishes it from read-only siblings like transloadit_get_assembly_status, though it does not explicitly contrast with transloadit_wait_for_assembly.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'optionally uploading files and waiting for completion' hints at behavioral choices, but it does not explain when to prefer this tool over transloadit_wait_for_assembly or when resumption is appropriate.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation but doesn't explicitly state it's read-only, nor does it mention implications like precedence when both assembly_id and assembly_url are provided, or any other side effects or prerequisites.

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 front-loads the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no unnecessary repetition 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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values don't need explanation. However, the lack of annotations and absence of usage guidance about when to use this over wait_for_assembly leaves the description only partially complete for an agent to make informed decisions.

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 must compensate. The phrase 'by URL or ID' hints that the two parameters are alternatives, but it adds little beyond the parameter names themselves, with no explanation of formats, requiredness, or behavior if both are supplied.

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 fetches the latest Assembly status by URL or ID, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_assembly' and 'wait_for_assembly' by focusing on fetching status, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with those tools.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as transloadit_wait_for_assembly. The description only says what it does, not when or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Returns', which is mildly read-only, but it does not explain how detail_level alters the output, what happens when no robot_name is provided, or how robot_name and robot_names interact. The phrase 'summary and parameter details' may even mislead when detail_level is set to 'examples'.

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 filler or redundant phrasing. It is efficiently front-loaded, though its brevity comes at the cost of necessary detail.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description omits critical context: all parameters are optional, and it does not state what happens when neither robot_name nor robot_names is supplied, or whether multiple names are and'ed or or'ed. It also fails to differentiate the tool from transloadit_list_robots, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 offers no parameter-level explanations. It does not clarify the relationship between robot_name and robot_names, nor the purpose of detail_level beyond the schema's enum values, so it fails to compensate for the total absence of schema descriptions.

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 ('Returns') and identifies the resource ('robot summary and parameter details'), clearly indicating this is a help/read tool. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like transloadit_list_robots, leaving the differentiation implicit.

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 such as transloadit_list_robots or transloadit_get_assembly_status. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: it does not create an Assembly, and it returns structured issues. However, it does not elaborate on side effects (if any), required permissions, or operational details like rate limits or error behavior. The non-mutating nature is partially implied but not fully explicit.

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 short sentences that immediately state the core purpose and a key differentiator. There is no redundancy or filler; every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is minimal for a tool with three parameters and no annotation coverage. It omits usage guidelines and parameter semantics, making it incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke the tool with correct inputs. The presence of sibling tools and schema does not compensate for these gaps.

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 has 0% description coverage for parameters (strict, instructions, return_fixed), and the description provides no explanation of what these parameters mean or how they affect linting. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema semantics, leaving the agent without guidance on how to set the parameters correctly.

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 lints Assembly Instructions and explicitly notes it does not create an Assembly, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like transloadit_create_assembly. The verb 'Lint' and resource 'Assembly Instructions' are specific, and the phrase 'without creating an Assembly' prevents ambiguity.

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 when validating instructions without creating an assembly, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no mention of scenarios like 'use transloadit_create_assembly to actually create' or when not to use this linting tool. The guidance is implied rather than direct.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a filtered list of summaries, implying read-only behavior, but it does not mention pagination (limit/cursor), authentication needs, or any other side effects. This is minimally adequate for a simple list operation.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and result, achieving maximum conciseness.

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 4 parameters and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks usage context, parameter behavior, and any mention of pagination or authentication. Although the output schema may cover return values, the description still fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to invoke 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for its four parameters (limit, cursor, search, category). The description only says 'filtered list' at a high level and does not explain how any of the parameters work, what values they accept, or how they affect the result. The description fails to compensate for the empty 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 returns a filtered list of robots with short summaries. The verb 'returns' and resource 'list of robots' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like list_templates because it specifically targets robots, not templates.

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 alternatives such as get_robot_help or list_templates. It does not mention any preconditions, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scoping (owned/builtin) but omits details like authentication needs, side effects (if any), or any operational caveats. For a list tool, safety may be implied but not explicitly stated.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and the tip is valuable without unnecessary verbosity. 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 7 optional parameters and no annotations, the description is too terse. It doesn't mention the full range of capabilities like pagination, sorting, keyword filtering, or include_content. The output schema covers return values, but the input-side guidance is sparse.

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 must compensate. It only explains the include_builtin parameter and one of its enum values, while the other six parameters (page, sort, order, keywords, page_size, include_content) remain unexplained. This is insufficient compensation.

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 Assembly Templates and distinguishes owned vs builtin. This is a specific verb and resource, and it stands apart from sibling tools (which focus on assemblies, robots, or help).

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?

It provides a concrete usage tip for listing builtins only via include_builtin, which is useful contextual guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, though the sibling tools make the purpose distinct enough.

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?

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool polls until completion or timeout, but does not reveal what happens on timeout (error vs. partial status), whether it requires one of assembly_id or assembly_url, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a 4-parameter 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 wasted words. It is concise, though it sacrifices necessary detail. It earns its place but could be expanded without becoming 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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the relationship between assembly_id and assembly_url, how poll_interval_ms works, or what the return value indicates. The context provided is insufficient for safe and 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the four parameters (timeout_ms, assembly_id, assembly_url, poll_interval_ms). The description fails to add any meaning beyond the schema, leaving the parameters entirely unexplained.

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's function: 'Polls until the Assembly completes or timeout is reached.' It uses a specific verb ('polls') and resource ('Assembly'), and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_assembly_status, which is a one-time status check. The purpose 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 a use case (blocking until completion) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_assembly_status, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is minimal and relies on inference.

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