video-research-mcp

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

Annotations indicate readOnly and openWorld hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context not in the annotations: specifically mentioning the backend ('Gemini'), the exact concurrency limit ('3 parallel calls'), and the return structure ('Dict with file counts...'). It does not contradict the annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections (general purpose, mode details, Args, Returns) and front-loads the core functionality. While the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are somewhat redundant given the rich schema and existing output schema, they improve readability without excessive verbosity.

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 8 parameters, high schema coverage, and existing output schema, the description provides adequate completeness. It explains the critical behavioral difference between modes, mentions the concurrency bound, and acknowledges the return structure, though it could note error handling behavior or max_files enforcement details.

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 88% (high), establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema for most parameters, largely echoing schema descriptions in the 'Args' section. It provides slight compensation for the one undocumented schema parameter (thinking_level) by noting it controls 'Gemini thinking depth', but does not elaborate significantly.

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 analyzes multiple content files using specific verbs ('analyze', 'compare') and resources ('content files', 'directory'). It distinguishes from the single-file sibling 'content_analyze' by emphasizing 'multiple' and 'batch' capabilities, and specifies the two distinct analysis modes ('compare' vs 'individual').

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each mode: 'compare' for cross-document analysis in a single call versus 'individual' for separate per-file analysis with bounded concurrency. However, it does not explicitly reference external alternatives like when to use 'content_analyze' for single files versus this batch tool.

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