longvideometa

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. However, 'longVideoMeta' reveals nothing about what the tool does operationally—whether it reads, writes, modifies, or analyzes data; what permissions or rate limits apply; or what side effects might occur. This leaves the agent completely in the dark about the tool's 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?

While the description is technically concise with a single word, it is severely under-specified rather than efficiently informative. Conciseness should not come at the expense of clarity; this description fails to convey any useful information, making it ineffective despite its brevity.

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's complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool does, how to use it, what it returns, or how it differs from siblings. Without annotations or output schema, the description must compensate but fails to provide any contextual completeness.

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%, with all three parameters documented in the schema itself (episode_id_current, album_id, aweme_id_current). The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters, their relationships, or usage examples. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without parameter details in the 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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'detail', 'aweme', or 'video' variants. Without any usage instructions, an agent cannot determine when this tool is the correct choice.

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