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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses that output defaults to Markdown and that format "json" returns a single object with plates, toolkit, recipe, and measured timeline. It does not state permissions, rate limits, or error behavior, but for a read-style retrieval tool it covers the key output-shape 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then covers format and the get_frames alternative. The component list is long but each item earns its place by clarifying what the blueprint contains.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values, which it does by listing blueprint contents and describing the JSON object. It is complete enough for invocation, with only minor gaps around include_recipe and operational constraints.

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%, so parameter meanings are already well documented. The description reinforces accepted id forms and the Markdown/json output distinction but adds little beyond the schema and omits include_recipe.

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 resource and verb: the full reverse-engineered blueprint of one video, and enumerates its contents. It also distinguishes itself from get_frames, so an agent can tell which retrieval tool to choose.

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 explicitly routes frame-viewing to get_frames and explains accepted identifier forms, giving clear usage context. It does not cover when to prefer other sibling tools such as storyboard or plan_video, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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