Extract Video Scenes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that audio is not analyzed, which is a helpful limitation. However, it fails to disclose that the tool may create output files (via outputDir or temporary files), its potential cost (CPU/memory usage), or that it requires ffmpeg (though siblings hint at this). These gaps leave the agent partially uninformed.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core action and then adds a key limitation. Every word is informative and earns its place.

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?

The tool has six parameters and no output schema. The description covers the main purpose and a limitation, but lacks details on output artifacts, performance implications, and error conditions. For a moderate-complexity tool, the description is adequate yet incomplete, warranting a middle score.

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 100% parameter description coverage. The tool description adds the context of scene detection and fallback sampling, which clarifies the 'mode' parameter but does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema provides. With full schema coverage, a 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 accurately specifies the tool's function: extracting timestamped screenshots using ffmpeg scene detection with fallback sampling. It clearly states the resource (video) and the action (extract scenes). The sibling tools are about ffmpeg management, so this tool is distinct and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for extracting frames from local video files, but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., ffmpeg installation) or scenarios where it might not be suitable. Given the siblings handle ffmpeg installation, context is partially provided, but not in the description.

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