analyze_video

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the underlying model (GLM-4.5V) but does not disclose behaviors such as output format, latency, cost, or any limitations of video analysis.

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 waste, which is structurally clean. However, it is too brief to convey essential context and borders on under-specification, which is not conciseness but rather incompleteness.

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 there are no annotations and no output schema, the description should compensate by explaining what the tool returns, any prerequisites (e.g., video URL format), and typical use cases. It provides none of this, making it insufficient for an AI agent to invoke confidently.

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 all parameters are already documented with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no extra information about parameters, which is acceptable since the schema fully covers them. 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 states a specific action ('Analyze') and a specific resource ('a video'), which clearly distinguishes it from image-related tools like read_image and pollinations_analyze_image. However, it does not specify what kind of analysis is performed or what aspects of the video are examined, making it somewhat generic.

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 vs alternatives. The sibling tools include image analysis and text generation, but the description does not explain when video analysis is appropriate or mention any alternatives to avoid.

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