mimo.video_understand

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

No annotations exist, so description provides behavioral info: auto-detection of 4 video source types and use of yt-dlp for downloads. However, it omits safety (read-only?), side effects, or rate limits.

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?

Single sentence covering key input flexibility. Could be better structured with bullet points for the 4 forms, but it's reasonably concise and front-loaded with purpose.

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?

Covers input formats but lacks constraints like file size limits, processing time, or concurrency. Output schema exists, so return info is covered, but overall context for safe agent usage is incomplete.

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 coverage is 0%, but description explains the 'video' parameter's 4 accepted formats. 'model' and 'prompt' parameters are not described, so only one of three parameters gains extra meaning.

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?

Description states '视频理解' (video understanding) and lists supported input formats. It clearly identifies the tool's resource (video) and action (understand), but doesn't specify what the understanding produces (e.g., description, answers).

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 on when to use this tool vs siblings like mimo.asr or mimo.image_understand. The description only details input formats, not context or alternatives.

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