qa

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it explains what hitches mean, that effective fps is per second, that flashes above 3/sec are flagged for photosensitivity, and that the result is a summary plus chart. It only leaves out side effects such as whether an analysis artifact is persisted or what permissions/limits apply.

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 purpose and then packs in the relevant measurement details in a single dense paragraph. Every clause relates to capability, parameter usage, or return value, though the density makes it slightly harder to scan than a bulleted structure.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain returns; it does so minimally with 'Returns a summary plus a chart.' For a four-parameter analysis tool with no annotations, the missing definitions for start/end and the sparse return-value detail leave meaningful 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful meaning for source (file, URL, or watch id) and fov_deg (horizontal headset field of view for deg/s comfort analysis), but gives no explanation for start or end, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 defines a specific analysis resource: QA of game/XR/app recordings across frame pacing, stereo, comfort, and flash/photosensitivity metrics. It is distinguishable from the sibling tools by its diagnostic focus, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with tools like frame or live_watch_for.

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 implies the tool is for analyzing recordings from a file, URL, or watch id, but does not state when to choose this over alternatives such as frame or live_snapshot. Usage is inferable from the metric list but not explicitly routed.

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