Search shots

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's added value is in disclosing return contents (shot timing, source film, direct MP4 links for shot and full film) and pagination via `nextOffset`. This is useful context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't mention rate limits, result caps, or how semantic relevance ordering behaves.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and examples, followed by browsing, return, and pagination notes in a logical order. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by summarizing return shape and the pagination continuation mechanism. It is nearly complete for invocation, with the minor gap of not clarifying filter interactions (e.g., how color/year/aspect filters combine with semantic query).

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 description coverage is only 43%, so the description carries more burden. It nicely explains `query` semantics (empty = browse) and the `offset`/`nextOffset` pagination contract, but adds nothing about `color`, `limit` (max 50), `aspectRatio`, or the `yearMin` edge-case bounds beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search the archive for individual shots") and disambiguates the search modality (semantic/CLIP) with two concrete example queries. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_sources, get_source, and list_collections, which operate on sources/collections rather than shots.

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?

Gives explicit usage conditions: leave `query` empty to browse in archive order, and pass `nextOffset` back as `offset` to paginate. It does not name alternative tools or state when to prefer another sibling, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing, but the operational guidance is clear.

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