Check Video Intelligence setup

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 that the tool is a configuration check, but it doesn't state whether it's read-only, what the output looks like, or how to interpret the result. It adds little beyond the title and could be more transparent about the check'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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and context without redundancy.

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 simplicity, the description covers its main purpose and usage. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits details about the returned status or behavior when the server is unconfigured. This leaves a gap for a tool that primarily returns a status.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly makes no claims about parameters.

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: checking whether the local video-analysis server is configured. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('server configured'), and it distinguishes from sibling tools by framing it as a prerequisite check for download and analysis operations.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'before attempting a download or Gemini analysis.' This references the sibling tools (download and Gemini analysis) and gives a clear temporal context. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is well-defined.

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