pika_explainer

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

With no annotations provided, the description holds the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a high-level transformation without mentioning side effects (e.g., generating video artifacts, fetching external content), permissions, rate limits, or any constraints. The tool appears to be a creation tool, but the description doesn't convey whether it is read-only, mutates state, or consumes significant resources.

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 effectively communicates the core purpose without extraneous information. Every word earns its place: 'Turn' signals transformation, the input sources are enumerated, and the output is clearly described. It is exemplary in terms of brevity and clarity.

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 one parameter and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, the description leaves a critical gap: how the 'written brief' is supplied through the 'url' parameter, and what limitations or prerequisites exist (e.g., whether the URL must be publicly accessible). It also doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings, making it incomplete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 schema has a single required 'url' field with no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The description mentions 'URL, GitHub repo, or written brief' as accepted inputs, which adds some meaning, but it doesn't clarify how a 'written brief' maps to a url string. This ambiguity is significant because the parameter is undocumented and the description fails to specify the exact format or encoding expected.

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 with a specific verb ('Turn') and resource ('URL, GitHub repo, or written brief') into a 'polished explainer video.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pika_generate or pika_skills by specifying both the input types and the output format, making the purpose 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?

The description implies a use case: when you have a URL, GitHub repo, or written brief and want an explainer video. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. For example, it doesn't mention that other Pika tools might be better for different video styles or input types, so guidance is only implicit.

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