pastorsimon1798/mcp-video

by KyaniteLabs

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.7.0
Disambiguation2/5
With 135 tools, many serve overlapping purposes (e.g., multiple text overlay tools, multiple glitch effects, multiple audio generation tools). Without the search_tools helper, an agent would frequently misselect. The descriptions help but the sheer volume causes confusion.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a consistent prefix-based pattern (video_, audio_, effect_, glitch_, hyperframes_). A few exceptions like storyboard_read or hyperframes_to_mcpvideo break the pattern, but overall naming is predictable and readable.
Tool Count1/5
135 tools is far too many for a single MCP server. Even sophisticated workflows can be covered with far fewer tools. The count overwhelms agents and suggests poor scoping.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers nearly every conceivable video and audio operation: editing, effects, transitions, compositing, AI features, workflow management, and even storyboard/project tools. No obvious gaps for standard video production tasks.
Average 3.5/5 across 135 of 135 tools scored. Lowest: 1.8/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 3 of 3 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 594 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 19, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
Tools from this server were used 2 times in the last 30 days.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or interactions with other tools. 'Coordinate proven local planners' is unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence but too brief and cryptic; does not front-load key information or earn its place with clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema and nested objects, the description lacks essential context about tool purpose and behavior, making it insufficient even with schema richness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'request' is an unconstrained object (additionalProperties: true) with no description. Schema coverage is 0%, and the tool description adds no meaning about what the request should contain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description is vague: 'Coordinate proven local planners or return a structured abstention.' Does not specify what the tool does with video or creative content, nor how it differs from many sibling planning tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like video_composition_plan or video_repurpose_plan. Missing context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the verb 'detect'. It omits whether the tool modifies the video, returns scene timestamps, or requires specific input formats. With no annotations, the burden is unmet.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is concise but sacrifices necessary detail. It front-loads the action but omits critical information about input, output, and parameters. A description this brief fails to serve its purpose effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of a sibling tool and an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not address how the tool differs, what the output contains, or how parameters influence behavior. The context signals demand a richer description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameter meanings. It does not define 'input_path', 'threshold', or 'use_ai', adding no value beyond the parameter names. Essential context for correct invocation is missing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the core action ('detect scene changes'), but fails to differentiate from the sibling tool 'video_detect_scenes'. Without context on what makes this AI-based version distinct, the purpose is clear but not uniquely identifiable among alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool instead of the similarly named 'video_detect_scenes' or any other video analysis tools. The description lacks prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'evidence-gated' but does not explain side effects, permissions, or whether the tool is read-only. The nature of 'plan or evaluate' suggests no destruction, but this is not stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence, 9 words), which is concise but lacks structure. It is front-loaded but insufficiently informative for a planning tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of planning tools and the flexible input, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what an 'evidence-gated' plan is, what the output (output schema exists) contains, or how to structure the request. Sibling tools show many similar plans, but no differentiation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'request' is a flexible object with no description in schema or description. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds zero meaning about the parameter's structure or expected content.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('plan or evaluate') and resource ('local restorative work'), but the phrase 'evidence-gated' is unclear and fails to distinguish from sibling tools like video_rescue_plan or video_repurpose_plan.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 usage for planning restorative work but does not mention exclusions or provide context for when to choose this over other plan tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states output is PNG and purpose is verification, but omits information about side effects, file destinations, permissions, or whether the operation is destructive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified for a tool with 6 parameters. Essential details are missing, making it concise but insufficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is severely lacking. It provides no context on parameter usage, output format beyond 'PNG screenshots', or how to integrate with other hyperframes tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage, yet the tool description adds no information about any parameter. It does not explain what 'key frames' means in context of the 'frames' or 'at' parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action (capture), resource (key frames), output format (PNG screenshots), and purpose (visual verification). However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'hyperframes_capture', which likely has a similar purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'hyperframes_capture' or 'hyperframes_still'. The phrase 'for visual verification' implies a use case but does not provide explicit decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether it modifies files, requires permissions, or has side effects. 'Benchmark' implies some execution but not enough detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (5 words) but at the expense of necessary detail. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists, the description is too minimal to provide adequate context for a benchmark tool with 4 parameters. Missing parameter explanations and usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (project_path, output_path, runs, json_output). The meaning of these parameters is entirely absent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool benchmarks Hyperframes render speed and file size. It distinguishes from sibling tools like hyperframes_render by focusing on benchmarking, but does not elaborate on scope or methodology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this vs. alternative tools such as hyperframes_render or hyperframes_preview. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description is minimal. It does not disclose behaviors like pagination, filtering defaults, or read-only status. The tool is likely read-only but not stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence), but at the expense of necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the core action but lacks completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, but the description does not cover how to use the parameters or what the output represents. For a catalog browser, more context on filtering and results is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters 'item_type' and 'tag'. The agent has no guidance on their meaning or usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Browse' and resource 'Hyperframes catalog blocks/components', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like hyperframes_add_block or hyperframes_render. However, it lacks detail on what 'browse' entails (e.g., list, search, filter).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given many sibling tools, explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use context is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It implies a read-only operation ('Print') but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, require no authentication, or explain possible errors. Minimal behavioral insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the action. No waste, but the brevity sacrifices helpful details. Could be expanded slightly without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has an output schema but no description of return values. Given no annotations and vague parameter, the description leaves significant gaps for an agent unfamiliar with Hyperframes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has zero description coverage for the sole parameter 'project_path'. The description does not explain what a valid project_path is (e.g., file path, URL, ID). No additional meaning beyond the type 'string'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'Print' and resource 'Hyperframes project metadata', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like hyperframes_init or hyperframes_capture. However, 'metadata' is somewhat vague, not specifying what aspects are included.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like hyperframes_inspect or hyperframes_info_detailed (if exists). The description does not mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'generate speech audio or list available Hyperframes local TTS voices' but does not disclose side effects, requirements (e.g., internet, authentication), or behavioral traits like whether generation is synchronous or asynchronous.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is a single sentence, concise and to the point. However, it could benefit from structuring the two modes explicitly (e.g., 'Use list_voices=true to list voices, otherwise generate audio from text').
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (6 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how the tool works, what the output schema contains, or how to switch between generation and listing modes. An output schema exists but its content is unknown.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema itself has no parameter descriptions. The description does not explain any parameters (e.g., text_or_file, output_path, voice, speed, language, list_voices) or how they relate to the two modes. The agent cannot infer parameter semantics from the description alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states two functions: generate speech audio or list voices. Verb-resource pair is specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like audio_synthesize, which might also generate audio.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance provided. It does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like audio_synthesize, nor does it mention prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description does not disclose side effects, performance impact, or safety profile beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise but lacks detail; it is not overly verbose but sacrifices completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 5 parameters, no param descriptions, no behavioral info, and an output schema not explained, the description is insufficient for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Parameter meanings are not elaborated; 'duration' and 'pixel_size' have no units or effect descriptions, and schema description coverage is 0%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it applies a pixelate transition between two clips, distinguishing it from other transition tools like transition_glitch and transition_morph.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other transitions, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description only mentions 'using Demucs.' It does not disclose side effects, permissions, output format, or processing characteristics, relying entirely on the minimal text.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no fluff, but it is too minimal. It conveys the core action but lacks structure or details, making it adequate but not efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With four parameters (0% schema description coverage), no annotations, and an output schema that is not referenced, the description is woefully incomplete. It provides no context on usage, parameter values, or expected outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for parameters. The tool description adds no information about any of the four parameters (input_path, output_dir, stems, model), failing to compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool separates audio into stems using Demucs, specifying the verb (separate) and resource (audio into stems). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like video_extract_audio, which could cause confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description is purely functional without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as processing time, file size limits, output format, or whether the operation is safe/read-only. It only names the model used.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks essential information. It is not front-loaded with critical details like output or parameter explanations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 parameters, no schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema details), the description is severely incomplete. It provides no context on return values, parameter usage, or how to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds no meaning beyond parameter names. For instance, 'output_srt' is not explained as an SRT subtitle file path. The description entirely fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool transcribes speech to text using Whisper, which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool 'hyperframes_transcribe'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'hyperframes_transcribe' or prerequisites (e.g., input must contain audio). The agent receives no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side-effects, required permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only or mutating. The description only lists what it builds without behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is not information-dense. It could include more details without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (nested object parameter, output schema exists), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value or provide guidance on the free-form request parameter, leaving the agent to infer too much.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'request' with type object and additionalProperties: true, but the description provides no explanation of its structure or expected content. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it builds 'manifests, selections, compositions, previews, and checks', indicating multiple outputs but not a single specific verb+resource. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like video_repurpose_plan or video_workflow_plan, which also produce plans.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or context for usage are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions 'local' and production of 'manifest and review artifacts', but fails to disclose side effects, required permissions, or behavior regarding input files.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise but overly terse. It sacrifices informativeness for brevity; additional sentences would improve clarity without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having five parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers only a vague notion of the output and omits critical details like parameter meanings, input requirements, and processing logic.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the five parameters. Terms like 'input_path', 'platforms', and 'min_score' are left unexplained, forcing the agent to infer from names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'Render' and resource 'local content repurposing package', making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'video_repurpose_plan', but the name and action imply a distinct function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a constructive action ('Build'), but with no annotations, it fails to disclose side effects, authorization needs, or what 'local' means. The brevity leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While concise, the single sentence is under-specified given the complexity of the tool (free-form object input, output schema). It lacks necessary detail to be effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite an output schema, the description omits crucial details about input structure, the nature of 'analyzer evidence', and what 'local, source-time' entails. Incomplete for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'request' has no schema description (0% coverage), and the description does not clarify its expected structure or fields. The tool adds no semantic value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Build') and the resource ('semantic timeline'), with qualifiers 'local, source-time' and 'from supplied analyzer evidence'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'video_semantic_query' and 'video_timeline_edit_plan', though not explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor any context on prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It mentions 'plan' and 'crop budgets' but does not disclose whether the tool is safe, modifies state, requires permissions, or what the plan object contains. Essential behavioral traits are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise—one sentence. While efficient, it sacrifices necessary detail for a planning tool with complex inputs. It earns a middling score for minimalism at the expense of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the flexible input schema and the existence of an output schema (not shown), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the request structure, return value, or how to integrate the plan with other tools, leaving critical gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single 'request' parameter is an object with additionalProperties: true, and schema coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what keys or values the request expects, providing no added meaning beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool plans subject/camera analysis, reframing, or stabilization with crop budgets, differentiating it from direct execution tools like video_crop and video_stabilize. However, 'plan' is somewhat vague, and the specific output of the plan is not described.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like video_crop or video_stabilize. The description does not suggest prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as destructive behavior, processing time, file handling, or output format. The agent remains unaware of side effects or operational constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks important information that would make it effective. While brevity is valued, here it sacrifices completeness, resulting in an under-informative description. An ideal description would be longer but still well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema but no annotations and four parameters, the description is insufficient. It fails to cover valid values, constraints, or expected outcomes. The agent cannot confidently invoke this tool without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the JSON schema provides no descriptions for any of the four parameters. The description 'Upscale video using AI super-resolution' adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the parameter names and defaults. The agent gets no explanation of valid values for 'model' or 'scale', nor any context for input/output paths.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Upscale') and the method ('AI super-resolution'), and it distinguishes the tool from siblings by specifying that it uses AI super-resolution for video upscaling. No sibling tool offers the same verb and resource combination.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'video_resize' or 'video_convert'. There are no explicit or implicit usage conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as processing requirements, file limits, or what happens to the original files. The brief statement adds little beyond the function name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is front-loaded and concise, but it is too terse for a tool with 6 parameters. While it earns its place by stating the purpose, it lacks essential structure and completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no behavioral context, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain output, usage prerequisites, or parameter constraints, making it inadequate for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 6 parameters (input_path, output_path, background_output_path, device, quality, info). It offers no semantics beyond the tool's general purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'remove' and the resource 'video/image background' using 'Hyperframes local AI'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like video_chroma_key by specifying AI-based removal, and no other sibling has 'background' in its purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., chroma key). It simply states the function without any context of appropriate scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states functionality without mentioning file size limits, supported formats, destructive actions, or required permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a single sentence, but it is too terse for a tool with multiple parameters and complexity. It avoids fluff but sacrifices informativeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description fails to provide sufficient context for correct usage. Lacks details on input formats, output structure, or workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no explanation for any of the four parameters. The agent must infer meaning from parameter names only.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool transcribes audio/video to word-level timestamps or imports transcripts. It uses a specific verb and resource, but it does not distinguish from sibling tool video_ai_transcribe.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states 'Remove silent sections from video.' It does not disclose behavioral traits such as how silence is detected, the effect on audio/video tracks, or any potential data loss.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While concise, the single sentence is too minimal and lacks structure. Every sentence should earn its place, but this one omits crucial information, making it underspecified rather than efficiently concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no descriptive schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain output behavior, edge cases, or the role of optional parameters like keep_margin.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema; it does not explain any parameter such as silence_threshold or min_silence_duration. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fails to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'remove' and resource 'silent sections from video', providing a specific purpose that distinguishes it from sibling tools like video_edit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description lacks any usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'inspect' and 're-check integrity' but does not specify whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects. This minimal disclosure leaves uncertainty about the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, it is so brief that it lacks necessary detail. It could be expanded with more context without becoming verbose. A concise description should still be informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is an output schema (though not fully visible) and the tool is part of a rescue workflow with siblings, the description does not provide sufficient context about the rescue process, what the inspection entails, or how the output is used. It feels incomplete for an AI agent to understand the tool's role.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must add meaning to the single 'receipt' parameter. It only says 'Inspect a rescue plan or receipt', implying the parameter is the receipt/plan, but does not clarify its format, structure, or expected values. This adds little beyond the parameter name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states what the tool does: 'Inspect a rescue plan or receipt and re-check artifact integrity.' It uses a specific verb 'Inspect' and identifies the resource. The sibling tools video_rescue_plan and video_rescue_render help distinguish it as an inspection step in the rescue workflow. However, 'artifact integrity' could be more precise, so not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or when not to use it. The sibling tools imply a workflow (plan -> inspect -> render), but the description itself offers no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, or what happens during capture. The description is too brief to compensate for missing annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It does not front-load critical information or organize details for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, an output schema not described), the description is insufficient. It leaves the agent without key context about behavior, return values, or parameter interactions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the five parameters (url, output, skip_assets, max_screenshots, timeout_ms). The tool definition fails to add meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'capture', the resource 'a website', and the result 'editable Hyperframes components'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like hyperframes_add_block or hyperframes_init.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where it is most appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states purpose but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it modifies data, requires a rendered composition, or has side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is a single concise sentence, but it lacks detail. It is not verbose, but the conciseness comes at the cost of informativeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 7 parameters and an output schema, the description does not cover return values, parameter roles, or any additional context. It is insufficient for complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. Description provides no explanation of any of the 7 parameters, such as 'samples', 'tolerance', 'strict', etc. Fails to add meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool inspects rendered composition layout for overflow and visual issues. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like hyperframes_add_block or hyperframes_validate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No indications of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'apply morph transition' but does not explain if files are modified, what output is produced, or any side effects. The agent lacks critical information about the tool's behavior beyond its basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, which is structurally efficient. However, it lacks necessary details, making it under-specified rather than optimally concise. It earns a middle score for brevity without completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, 0% schema description, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not mention the output schema or explain parameters like duration and mesh_size. The agent would struggle to invoke the tool correctly without additional information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. However, it only vaguely references 'two video clips' for clip1_path and clip2_path, and completely ignores output_path, duration, and mesh_size. The agent cannot infer the meaning or format of these parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Apply morph transition between two video clips,' which clearly identifies the tool's action (apply morph transition) and resource (two video clips). This distinguishes it from sibling transitions like 'transition_glitch' or 'transition_pixelate' by naming the specific morph effect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where other transitions are preferable. The agent has no context to decide between morph, glitch, or pixelate transitions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions 'without network I/O', which is a behavioral trait. However, with no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose what the tool returns, what 'explicit remote egress' entails, or how 'fake adapter receipts' work. This is minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence, concise and front-loaded. However, it is too brief, sacrificing essential details. Every word earns its place but at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema and a nested object parameter, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the input structure, output format, or overall workflow. The agent cannot invoke this tool correctly without additional information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'request' has no schema details (additionalProperties: true, 0% schema coverage). The description does not explain what the parameter should contain, its structure, or any constraints. This adds no semantic value beyond the name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'plan' and specifies 'remote egress' and 'fake adapter receipts', which gives a specific purpose. The phrase 'without network I/O' adds clarity. However, the terms are jargon-heavy and may not be immediately clear to an AI agent, and it doesn't explicitly distinguish from other planning tools like video_rescue_plan.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple 'plan' tools in the sibling list, and the description offers no differentiation or context for proper usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool does not invent descriptions, which is a key behavioral trait. However, without annotations, it lacks details on safety, permissions, or side effects. It adequately signals a read-like operation but is minimally informative.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action. However, its brevity comes at the cost of leaving out important parameter details, making it slightly less effective than it could be.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (nested object parameter, output schema exists) and lack of schema documentation, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what the request should contain, what the output represents, or how the tool fits into a workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage as it only defines a single 'request' object with additionalProperties. The description does not explain what properties should be included in the request, nor does it clarify the expected structure. This provides no help beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Query source-backed semantic spans locally'. This clearly indicates the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'video_semantic_timeline', though the mention of 'locally' provides implicit distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'without inventing descriptions' hints at a constraint, but there is no explicit context for appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the purpose, with no behavioral details such as whether the method parameter modifies behavior, what happens to the input file, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with 4 parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it is so minimal that it feels under-specified rather than efficiently concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not cover parameter meanings or usage context, which is necessary for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description does not explain any of the 4 parameters (input_path, output_path, positions, method). It provides no semantic meaning beyond the tool name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Apply 3D spatial audio positioning,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like audio_effects, audio_compose, and other audio processing tools by specifying spatial audio positioning.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, input requirements, or context. It lacks any usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description bears full burden. It implies non-destructive behavior through 'dry-run' but does not explicitly state that no files are modified, nor does it disclose output format or side effects. Minimal behavioral detail beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action. However, given the lack of parameter and guidance details, it sacrifices completeness for brevity slightly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having no annotations and three parameters with zero description coverage, the description only offers a high-level purpose. It fails to explain what a 'manifest' is, how to use output, or connect to sibling tools. An output schema exists but is not detailed, leaving the description incomplete for practical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no additional meaning for the three parameters ('input_path', 'output_dir', 'platforms'). The phrase 'platform-ready assets' hints at platforms but does not clarify input or output expectations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 ('Create') and resource ('dry-run local repurposing manifest for platform-ready assets'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'video_repurpose' by emphasizing the planning and dry-run aspect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'video_repurpose'. It does not mention prerequisites or context for the planning step, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist; the description does not disclose side effects, safety, or if the tool is read-only. 'Plan' implies non-destructive, but this is not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is a single concise sentence with key information, but could benefit from more structure (e.g., listing what the request requires).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With a single opaque parameter and no schema descriptions, the description lacks essential context about inputs and usage; output schema exists but is not referenced.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has one free-form object parameter with no description; schema coverage is 0%. The description adds no meaning about what the request should contain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool plans timeline edits as a reviewable EDL and diff, distinguishing it from sibling tools like video_composition_plan or video_edit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; no mention of when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool generates and adds audio but does not disclose side effects such as whether existing audio tracks are overwritten or mixed, any permission requirements, or performance implications. The description is too minimal for behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (around 8 lines) and front-loads the purpose. It uses a clear list for parameters. It avoids extra fluff but could be slightly more compact without losing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (nested audio_config with additionalProperties, 3 required params, no annotations), the description lacks detail on audio_config structure and behavioral context. It does not explain return values, but an output schema exists. Overall, it is incomplete for the tool's richness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains input_path, output_path, and outlines audio_config with drone and events. However, it does not fully specify the structure (e.g., event format, volume ranges). It adds value over the empty schema but leaves gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Add procedurally generated audio to a video', specifying the verb and resource. It mentions it's a 'one-shot convenience function to generate and add audio', which differentiates from sibling tools like video_add_audio (add existing audio) or audio_synthesize (generate only). However, it does not explicitly compare to all related siblings, so it's clear but not fully distinguished.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description calls it a 'one-shot convenience function', implying quick use, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like using audio_synthesize then video_add_audio. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. Only states it applies fixes, but doesn't mention whether operation is destructive, file size/quality impact, or required codec support. Missing key behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise and front-loaded with core purpose. Argument list is well-organized. No unnecessary words, but could benefit from brief bullet points for parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a video fixing tool, description covers basic operations but lacks details on output format, prerequisites, and how it differs from similar tools. Output schema exists but not shown; if it details return values, completeness is adequate. Still, some gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description adds value by explaining input_path as absolute path and output_path as optional with auto-generation. However, no information on acceptable formats, constraints, or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it auto-fixes design issues like brightness, contrast, saturation, and audio levels. Differentiates from many video tools but does not explicitly contrast with specific siblings like video_ai_color_grade or video_normalize_audio.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., manual color grading or audio normalization). No when-not or prerequisite information provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that burn=True modifies the video, but does not explain whether subtitles are saved as a separate file, overwrite existing subtitles, or require any permissions. Key behavioral traits like output location and side effects are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and structured with an Args list. It front-loads the main purpose. While the Args list repeats schema info, it adds type clarity. Overall efficient and readable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (3 params, 2 required, no nested objects, output schema present), the description does not mention return values or what happens after execution (e.g., modified video, separate SRT file). It lacks completeness about the tool's effect on files.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning by specifying the keys of entries (start, end, text) and their types (float, str). However, it does not explain the time format (e.g., seconds or milliseconds) or constraints on input_path, leaving some ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool generates SRT subtitles from text entries and optionally burns into video. It specifies the resource (SRT subtitles) and action (generate). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like video_subtitles or video_subtitles_styled, which could be confused.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as video_subtitles or audio options. It does not mention prerequisites, preferred scenarios, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions shifting channels and simulating offset print errors but does not disclose side effects, destructive potential, authentication needs, or rate limits. The behavioral impact is under-specified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively concise with a clear structure: brief intro, then Args/Returns. Front-loaded with purpose. Could be slightly tighter, but no wasted sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and many sibling glitch tools, the description is incomplete. It barely explains the effect, doesn't cover performance or combination guidelines, and the Returns section is minimal. More detail would help differentiation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains parameters (input_path, output_path, amount, angle, noise) in the Args section with defaults, but lacks detailed semantics (e.g., how angle interacts with amount). Provides baseline value but not comprehensive.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Apply CMYK split glitch effect' and explains it shifts RGB channels at 90-degree intervals to simulate registration errors, distinguishing it from sibling glitch tools like glitch_rgb_shift.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. Does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or contexts where it should be avoided. Lacks differentiation from similar glitch tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not state that the tool is non-destructive, nor does it mention any side effects, authorization needs, or output format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise and well-structured. A single sentence explains the tool's purpose, followed by a clear list of arguments with their explanations. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain the tool's return value (e.g., file path of the extracted frame). Also missing are error conditions, supported video formats, and file size limits. For a tool with no annotations, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaningful details for all three parameters: input_path (absolute path), timestamp (seconds, default 10% duration), output_path (auto-generates if omitted). This compensates for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool extracts a single frame from a video (verb+resource). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'video_extract_frame', which likely serves a similar purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'video_extract_frame'. The description only provides default behavior for the timestamp parameter but lacks contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description fails to disclose key behavioral details. It implies a write operation ('Install') but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether blocks can be overwritten, if internet access is needed, or how 'no_clipboard' affects behavior). With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only covers basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with a single sentence stating purpose followed by a structured, bullet-like argument list. Every word serves a purpose, and the information is front-loaded. No unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is incomplete given the tool's complexity. It does not explain the return value (despite an output schema existing), side effects, or the behavior of the omitted 'no_clipboard' parameter. An agent would need additional context to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning for the two required parameters beyond the schema's bare type: 'project_path' is specified as an absolute path, and 'block_name' includes an example. However, the optional 'no_clipboard' parameter is completely omitted from the description, reducing completeness given the low schema coverage (0%).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Install') and resource ('a block from the Hyperframes catalog'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like hyperframes_catalog (likely for browsing) and hyperframes_init (project setup), as it specifically focuses on adding a block to an existing project.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no usage guidance. It does not indicate when this tool should be used over alternatives (e.g., after browsing with hyperframes_catalog, or before using hyperframes_render). No prerequisites or subsequent steps are mentioned, leaving the agent without context on proper workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Run comprehensive design quality analysis' and 'Can automatically fix issues', but does not disclose whether the tool modifies the original file, requires permissions, or has side effects. Behavioral traits are minimally disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, front-loading the main purpose, followed by a clear Args section. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks context on the effect of auto_fix (e.g., whether it modifies the file), and does not clarify distinctions from siblings like 'video_quality_check' or 'video_fix_design_issues'. It is adequate but incomplete for the tool's complexity and sibling set.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaningful explanations for all three parameters: input_path as absolute path, auto_fix enabling automatic fixes, and strict mode for warnings as errors. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Run comprehensive design quality analysis on a video' and lists specific quality aspects (layout, typography, color, motion, composition). However, it does not differentiate from sibling 'video_quality_check', which may have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'video_fix_design_issues' or 'video_quality_check'. The description mentions auto-fix capability but does not advise on appropriate scenarios or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description only states the basic function and parameters, lacking details about side effects, performance, or output characteristics beyond what is implied.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: one-line purpose followed by clear parameter descriptions in a structured list. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a detection tool with an output schema (not shown). The description covers parameters but omits any mention of the output format or what the tool returns, relying on the output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful semantic information: threshold range (0.0-1.0, lower more sensitive) and min_scene_duration default. This compensates well for the schema's lack of documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly describes the tool as detecting scene changes in a video, with specific parameters. However, sibling tool 'video_ai_scene_detect' exists, and the description does not differentiate between them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like video_ai_scene_detect. Does not state prerequisites or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It reveals that output_path auto-generates if omitted, but lacks details on destructiveness, permission requirements, or side effects like file modification. Insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is reasonably sized with clear sections (common presets, Args list). Minor redundancy and incomplete filter_type list, but overall efficient and front-loaded with key examples.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers basic usage and parameter roles, but lacks details on return values, filter combination, or processing order. Output schema exists, reducing need for return info, but context about limitations or chaining is missing. Adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, description adds meaning by explaining parameters like input_path, filter_type, params (with examples), crf, and preset. However, filter_type list is incomplete, and param details are limited. Provides moderate value beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it applies a visual filter to a video, with a specific verb ('apply') and resource ('visual filter'). Examples of common presets further clarify functionality, distinguishing it from sibling audio-specific or single-effect tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like specific effect tools or audio filtering tools. The description does not mention when not to use it or provide context for choosing this tool over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like output file structure, whether input is modified, or auth requirements. It only lists parameters, missing details on the HLS segment generation process.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a structured parameter list. It is efficient and easy to read.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks completeness: it does not describe the output format, how the HLS segments are structured, or any side effects like file creation. Despite an output schema, the description should still provide context on the workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides basic parameter meanings (path, directory, duration, playlist name, qualities), covering the 5 parameters. However, it does not explain default values or provide format constraints beyond the schema. Given 0% schema coverage, this is adequate but not excellent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific action (segment) and output format (HLS). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on HTTP Live Streaming, which is not covered by other video tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no usage guidelines. It does not explain when to prefer this over other video processing tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It mentions a 'hard quality gate' and creation of preview artifacts but does not explain failure behavior, what constitutes 'hard,' or any side effects beyond the artifacts.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with minimal waste, but it lacks structured detail. It is efficient yet somewhat vague.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not cover parameter semantics, output details, or the exact nature of the quality gate, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain any of the four parameters (input_path, output_dir, min_score, frame_count), relying on the user to infer their meaning from context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates preview artifacts (thumbnail and storyboard) after passing a quality gate, distinguishing it from siblings like video_thumbnail and video_storyboard which lack the quality gate step.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises use before publishing or chaining polish effects, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools for similar purposes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description provides useful behavioral details: it is a non-destructive planning step that records findings, recommendations, blocked work, and an execution estimate. However, it does not mention prerequisites or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact (two sentences plus a list) and front-loads the core action. It is efficient, though the list could be integrated more cleanly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values, but it names what is recorded. However, the lack of parameter context reduces completeness for an agent to correctly invoke the tool among numerous siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description omits any explanation of the parameters (policy, source, save_plan, output_dir). It mentions 'local video' implying source but fails to document format, defaults, or usage for the other parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it analyzes a local video and returns a policy-classified rescue plan. It distinguishes from siblings like video_rescue_render by noting it never renders final media, but does not explicitly differentiate from video_restoration_plan, which is a similar planning tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like video_rescue_inspect or video_restoration_plan. The safety note 'Planning never changes the source or renders final media' is implied but insufficient for proper tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions auto-generation of output_path but lacks disclosure of side effects, permissions, or limitations. Behavior beyond resizing is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear heading and structured Args section. Every sentence adds value, and it front-loads the purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 6-parameter tool with one required, the description covers core functionality and parameter interactions. It omits details on quality differences but is otherwise adequate given the presence of an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains each parameter's role, notes that aspect_ratio overrides width/height, and lists aspect ratio presets. However, quality presets are not explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Resize a video or change its aspect ratio.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like video_crop or video_rotate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., video_crop for cropping, video_edit for complex edits). The agent must infer usage from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it overwrites existing files, requires specific permissions, or what the output schema looks like. It only lists parameter descriptions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the purpose, and the parameter list is structured and concise. However, it could be more compact but is acceptable for the number of parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 10 parameters and no output schema description, the explanation is incomplete. It does not describe what the tool produces (e.g., file structure, project type) or any side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes a parameter block that adds meaning beyond the input schema, which has no descriptions. Each parameter is briefly explained, including defaults for some, which helps the agent understand usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Scaffold a new Hyperframes project', providing a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from other sibling tools like 'hyperframes_add_block' or 'hyperframes_capture'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and does not provide any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer that it's for project initialization.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It states it returns scores and recommendations but does not mention whether the tool modifies the video, requires specific permissions, or has any side effects. The read-only nature is implied by 'check' but not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, then a clear list of parameters. No redundant information, front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists (documenting return values) and the tool has only two simple parameters, the description is largely complete. It could mention that the tool is read-only and does not alter the video, but the overall coverage is good.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes an Args section that explains each parameter (input_path as 'Absolute path to video file' and fail_on_warning as 'If True, treat warnings as failures'), adding meaning beyond the schema which only has titles and types. This compensates for 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Run visual quality checks on a video' and lists specific metrics (brightness, contrast, saturation, audio levels, color balance). It distinguishes the tool from generic analysis tools like video_analyze by focusing on quality checks, though it does not explicitly compare to similar siblings like video_compare_quality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., why use this over video_analyze or video_fix_design_issues). No when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description lacks behavioral details such as whether the tool modifies the input file or creates a new one, permission requirements, or error handling. Only parameter defaults are given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a concise one-line summary followed by a parameter list. It is efficient but could be slightly improved by including the missing 'typewriter_speed' parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 11 parameters and no output schema visible (though context says it exists), the description lacks explanations for the missing 'typewriter_speed' parameter, does not cover prerequisites or constraints, and provides no example usage. The output is only vaguely described as a dict with success status and output_path.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes an Args section that adds meaning beyond the input schema, explaining each parameter with defaults and brief clarifications (e.g., absolute path, animation types). However, it misses the 'typewriter_speed' parameter present in the schema, slightly reducing completeness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Add animated text to video' and lists animation effects (fade, slide-up, typewriter), making the purpose specific and distinguishing it from static text tools like video_add_text.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like video_add_text or video_add_texts. There is no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses processing a chain but omits behavioral traits like destructive nature (overwriting output), file size limits, sample rate requirements, or permission needs. Only basic processing is mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise with a clear structure: one-line summary, brief explanation, Args/Returns section. No redundant sentences, but could be slightly more compact.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and moderate complexity, the description covers basic function but lacks details on effect parameter constraints, file format restrictions, and return format. Output schema exists but is not described; description mentions success dict.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It specifies input/output paths as absolute paths and describes effects as a list with type and additional params, giving examples. However, it does not detail the additional params per effect type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it applies an audio effects chain to a WAV file, listing specific effects like reverb, filtering, and normalization. It distinguishes from sibling tools like audio_preset and audio_sequence by focusing on custom effect chains.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for applying multiple effects but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives like audio_preset or when not to use. No exclusions or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond 'run diagnostics,' such as what is checked, potential side effects, or if it is safe.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is one short sentence, front-loaded with the key action. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks detail on what diagnostics are performed or what the output indicates. For a diagnostic tool, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters. Schema coverage is 100%. Description does not add additional meaning but baseline for zero params is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it runs diagnostics for the Hyperframes environment. This distinguishes it from siblings which are specific effects or video operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 alternatives, such as whether to run before other operations or when troubleshooting. No mention of prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool 'validates' but does not explain what validation entails (e.g., checks for missing files, configuration errors, dependencies). There is no mention of side effects, authentication needs, or output behavior, leaving the agent with insufficient understanding of what happens when the tool is invoked.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a one-line purpose and a single argument description. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler. The structure front-loads the purpose, making it quickly scannable for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the existence of an output schema, the description lacks context about the validation process. An agent cannot determine what specific validations are performed, what constitutes 'rendering readiness,' or any prerequisites (e.g., project must exist). The tool's role among workflow steps is unclear, making it less useful for complex decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds useful semantics: 'Absolute path to the Hyperframes project directory,' which clarifies the parameter's nature (absolute path, directory, project-related) beyond the raw schema type 'string'. This is sufficient for correct usage, though more detail (e.g., accepted formats) would be beneficial.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Validate a Hyperframes project for rendering readiness.' The verb 'validate' combined with the resource 'Hyperframes project' is specific and unambiguous. The purpose is distinct from sibling tools like hyperframes_render or hyperframes_doctor, making it easy for an agent to select this tool when validation is needed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool (e.g., before rendering) or when to avoid it (e.g., if you need a different type of check). There is no mention of alternatives among the many sibling tools, leaving the agent without guidance on proper workflow context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description does not disclose side effects (e.g., file overwriting, destructive nature), permissions, or failure modes. Only states the action without behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded with one-sentence purpose, followed by structured parameter list. Slightly verbose but clear; no wasted sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers all parameters but lacks usage context (e.g., output_path behavior when null, return format). Output schema exists, so return values needn't be detailed here. Missing behavioral and guideline information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, description compensates by explaining each parameter (clip1_path, clip2_path, output_path, duration, intensity), including defaults and range (intensity 0-1). Adds meaning beyond schema types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Apply glitch transition between two video clips', specifying verb, resource, and scope. Distinguishes from sibling transition tools like transition_morph and transition_pixelate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use or avoid this tool compared to other transitions. Does not mention prerequisites, ideal use cases, or alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only outlines parameters without disclosing behavior such as error handling, partial failures, or concurrency for batch processing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The list of operations is clearly formatted, though truncated slightly in the provided text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers basic usage for a batch tool, but lacks details on output format, error behavior, and potential limitations. Since an output schema exists, the return values are partially addressed, but not fully.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description gives basic semantics for each parameter (e.g., inputs as absolute paths, operation list, params as parameters, output_dir auto-generated). However, it lacks detail on the structure of 'params'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Apply the same operation to multiple video files' with a specific list of operations, distinguishing it from siblings that operate on single files.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies batch use but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. single-file tools like video_trim or video_resize, nor does it mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool modifies the input file, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. It implies output creation but does not clarify if it overwrites files or handles errors. This lack of transparency could lead to misuse.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a clear one-sentence summary followed by a parameter list. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the parameter descriptions in the args block could be integrated into the schema descriptions for better structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema (not shown), the burden for return values is reduced. The description covers all parameters but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details. For a tool with 5 parameters and 1 required, it is minimally complete but could be improved with context on when to adjust similarity/blend values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, leaving the description to compensate. It explains `input_path` as absolute path, `color` as hex format with default green, `similarity` range 0.0-1.0, `blend` default, and `output_path` auto-generation. This adds significant meaning beyond the plain schema, though it could more explicitly define allowed formats.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Remove a solid color background (green screen / chroma key).' It uses a specific verb ('remove') and resource ('solid color background'). Among sibling tools, there is `video_luma_key` for luminance keying, but the description distinguishes by explicitly naming 'chroma key' and 'green screen', 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `video_luma_key` or `video_apply_mask`. It does not specify prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The agent has to infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description correctly indicates a read operation with no destructive side effects. However, it lacks additional behavioral details such as error handling, support for various file formats, or output structure. With no annotations, the description could be more informative.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences with no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema, so return values are partially handled, but the description does not specify what metadata tags are included or how they are structured. For a simple one-parameter tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'input_path' is described as 'Absolute path to the video or audio file', which adds clarity beyond the schema's bare type definition. This compensates for the schema's 0% description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Read metadata tags from a video/audio file', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like video_info and video_info_detailed by focusing on tags, though it does not explicitly differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as video_info or video_write_metadata. No when-not conditions or prerequisite information are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains the underlying mechanism (P-frame corruption, drift, reset), which conveys the behavioral effect. However, without annotations, it does not disclose whether the tool is destructive, modifies inputs, or has side effects like temporary file creation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the effect name and mechanism. It uses a numbered list for parameters and clearly indicates return type. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers input parameters, mechanism, and return value. However, it misses potential failure modes, required input formats, and performance considerations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the purpose of each parameter (input_path, output_path, drift, iframe_interval) and provides defaults, which adds meaning beyond the schema. The optional/null nature of output_path is not clarified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Apply datamoshing glitch effect' and explains the simulation mechanism. It distinguishes the tool from general video tools but does not explicitly differentiate from the many glitch sibling tools (e.g., glitch_rgb_shift).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like other glitch effects or video filters. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where the tool is inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must fully convey behavior. It mentions launching a server but does not disclose if it is blocking, how to stop it, or any side effects. Too minimal for a tool that starts a server.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence provides essential information without superfluous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists (reducing need for return value explanation), the description is adequate for a simple launch tool. However, it lacks lifecycle context on server startup/teardown.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds value by specifying that 'project_path' is an absolute path and giving the default for 'port'. This goes beyond the schema which only has titles and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Launch') and the specific resource ('Hyperframes preview studio for live preview'). It distinguishes from siblings like hyperframes_render and hyperframes_info by focusing on live preview.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, lifecycle, or when to choose preview over other hyperframes tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose what the output contains (e.g., arrays of peaks, silence intervals) or any side effects (none expected). It fails to explain behavior like error handling or performance implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise: two sentences, no redundant words. The core action is front-loaded ('Extract audio waveform data').
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with two parameters and an output schema (though not shown), the description covers the basic purpose and arguments. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details, which are important for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% coverage (no descriptions for parameters), so the description adds value by clarifying input_path as an absolute path and bins as number of time segments with a default. However, it does not specify valid ranges or format constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Extract audio waveform data (peaks and silence regions)', which specifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like video_extract_audio (which extracts the audio track) and audio_compose (which creates audio).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., video_extract_audio, audio_effects). It does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states that files in 'keep' are preserved, but lacks details on whether deletion is irreversible, what happens if paths don't exist, or any other side effects. This is insufficient for a destructive tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and well-structured: a one-line summary, context, and param list. It uses markdown for the 'keep' note. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, the description should cover safety and error behavior, but it does not. The tool is simple, and the output schema exists (not shown), so the basic behavior is conveyed, but lacking details makes it adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description adds essential meaning: 'files' are absolute paths to delete and 'keep' are paths to preserve. This is clear, though it could include error behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'delete' and the resource 'intermediate video files after a workflow'. It also explains the 'keep' behavior. Although it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, the purpose is specific enough to stand out among the many video tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description says 'Useful for multi-step pipelines that leave temporary outputs', providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions that output_path is auto-generated if omitted and gives audio format options, but otherwise lacks behavioral details such as error handling, side effects, or requirements (e.g., codecs). While there is an output schema, it is not shown, and no annotations are present.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, using three short bullet points for parameters, and front-loads the main purpose in one sentence. Every piece of information is relevant and non-redundant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has three parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core functionality but omits details like required libraries, error scenarios, or performance considerations. It is adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds meaning for all three parameters: explains input_path as absolute path, notes output_path auto-generation, and lists common audio format values for the format parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Extract the audio track') and the target resource ('from a video file'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that compose or modify audio rather than extracting.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like audio_compose or video_add_audio. No usage context or exclusion criteria are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It explains that pixels below threshold become transparent and that output_path is auto-generated, but omits side effects (e.g., if original file is modified), permissions, or performance implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a single sentence for purpose followed by a structured argument list. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though minor formatting improvements (e.g., bullet points) could enhance readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers all parameters and basic behavior, but omits details about output format (e.g., alpha channel presence), video format constraints, and any operational nuances. Given simple tool complexity and existing output schema, it is minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions are missing (0% coverage), but the description adds clear meaning: input_path as absolute path, threshold with range and effect, output_path with auto-generation behavior. This fully compensates for schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the tool masks out dark regions based on luminance, with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from color-based keying (e.g., video_chroma_key) by specifying luminance.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like video_apply_mask or video_chroma_key. The description does not mention alternatives or context-specific usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions auto-generated output path but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as error handling, permissions, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear front-loaded purpose and a bulleted parameter list. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers parameter semantics but lacks context on output format, error cases, or constraints like file requirements. Given the tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema, it is minimally acceptable but could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter in the Args list, including layout options and output path behavior. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's titles and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Place' and resource 'two videos', clearly stating the layout options 'side by side or top/bottom'. It distinguishes from siblings like video_layout_grid and video_layout_pip, which handle different layouts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, excluded scenarios, or explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It notes the function embeds subtitles and returns a success dict, but omits important details like whether the operation is destructive (overwrites output), required permissions, codec constraints, or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences plus a structured docstring with minimal words. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The presence of an output schema reduces the burden, and the description covers the return type. However, it lacks information about edge cases (e.g., invalid paths, unsupported subtitle formats) and dependencies (e.g., ffmpeg). For a tool with 4 parameters, this is adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by listing each parameter with a brief explanation. For the 'style' param, it provides useful hints about allowed fields (font, size, color, outline), adding significant meaning beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool burns subtitles from SRT/VTT files with custom styling, distinguishing it from sibling tools like video_subtitles (generic) and video_generate_subtitles (generation). The verb 'burn' and resource 'subtitles with custom styling' are specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as video_subtitles. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action and lists parameters, without revealing important traits like resource intensity, side effects, or whether output path overwrites. This is insufficient for a render tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is front-loaded with a clear single-sentence purpose. The parameter list is structured and readable, though lengthy. It effectively organizes 25 parameters without extra fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While parameters are individually described, the description lacks an overall context (e.g., typical render workflow, expected output, or interaction with other params). Output schema exists but is not leveraged to explain return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by giving inline explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'Absolute path to the Hyperframes project directory'). This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Render a Hyperframes composition to video', providing a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like hyperframes_preview or hyperframes_validate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives guidance. The purpose is implied by the name and description, but the description does not clarify when to choose this over other hyperframes tools (e.g., still, preview).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It lists parameters but lacks details on error handling, file overwrite behavior, or side effects beyond auto-generating output path.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is brief with two sentences and a bullet-like Args section. Front-loaded and every sentence adds value, though could be slightly more structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool, the description covers purpose and parameters well. However, it omits potential constraints (e.g., image format limits) and return value details, despite an output schema existing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains images (absolute paths, order), output_path (auto-generated if omitted), and fps (default 30.0), adding significant meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The tool name and description clearly indicate it creates a video from images. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like video_export_frames which does the inverse.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. No explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions a key behavioral detail: 'Image overlays are applied in a single filtergraph pass (no multiple re-encodes).' However, it omits other behavioral traits like resource usage, idempotency, file overwrite behavior, or potential side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear first sentence, an important behavioral note, and an 'Args' section. It is concise relative to the complexity, though the example could be slightly trimmed without losing value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and the existence of an output schema (not described), the description does not explain return values. It covers the main purpose and parameter structure but misses constraints like file size limits or error handling. Overall adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning by providing a concrete example for the 'timeline' parameter, explaining it can be a JSON object, string, or file path, and detailing image overlay structure. It also clarifies 'output_path' is optional. This goes beyond the schema's empty descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Execute a full timeline-based edit from a JSON specification,' specifying the verb (execute) and resource (full timeline-based edit). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by emphasizing comprehensive editing via a single JSON specification, unlike other video tools that handle individual tasks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where a simpler tool (like video_merge or video_convert) would be preferred, nor does it list prerequisites or complementary tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates it creates a video file and returns a status dict, but it does not disclose whether existing files at output_path are overwritten or any other side effects. With no annotations, the description should carry this burden.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and structured with Args/Returns, but the first sentence is redundant with the second. Could be more concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, parameters, and return value. Missing details like file format, overwrite behavior, or constraints on duration. An output schema is present but not shown; the description provides return structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All 6 parameters are explained with clear descriptions, including acceptable values for style, hex codes for colors, and defaults. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it generates a progress bar or loading animation video. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool `video_mograph_count`, which may produce a similar countdown animation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only describes what the tool does, not when it's appropriate or when to avoid it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states that the tool creates folders (style, storyboard, refs) and accepts slug/output_dir, but does not cover error handling (e.g., slug conflicts), permission needs, or mutation scope. Some behavioral info but incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is brief (two sentences plus arg list). Front-loaded with purpose, then parameter specifics. No wasted words, but could organize param info more clearly (e.g., bullet list).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Output schema exists but description does not mention return value. No error conditions or side effects described. For a creation tool, completeness is adequate but not thorough; agent may need to infer output behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema). Description adds critical details: slug pattern (lowercase, numbers, hyphens, underscores) and output_dir default (cwd). This significantly exceeds schema info, aiding agent understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'scaffold' and resource 'cinematic video project' with explicit mention of folders (style, storyboard, refs). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on editing, effects, or other operations. No sibling tool appears to handle project scaffolding.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., hyperframes_init). The description does not mention prerequisites, workflow context, or when not to use it. Agent has to infer from name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that audio is also reversed and that output can be auto-generated, but it does not address whether the operation is destructive, what file formats are supported, or any side effects (e.g., time length remains same). This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a single sentence defining the tool's purpose followed by a clear, structured argument list. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to scan. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameters. However, it lacks information about input file constraints, output format, or potential errors, leaving room for improvement. Still, it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explains that input_path requires an absolute path and output_path is optional with auto-generation. This adds useful context beyond the schema's basic type and title information. However, it could specify format requirements or constraints (e.g., file extension).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('reverse') and resource ('video and audio') and clearly indicates the result ('plays backwards'). This is unique among sibling tools, which include many video editing operations but no other tool focused on reversing playback.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description simply states what the tool does without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains the effect and parameters but does not disclose whether it modifies files in-place, performance costs, or destructive nature. Adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with title, effect explanation, and parameter list. Slightly verbose due to docstring style and redundant return info given output schema, but still efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a specialized effect tool with 5 parameters and output schema, the description covers essential information. Lacks prerequisites or performance hints, but overall complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description explains all 5 parameters with defaults and ranges (e.g., intensity 0-1). Adds meaning beyond schema, though output_path null behavior is not clarified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Apply macroblocking glitch effect' and explains it simulates codec artifacting via downscaling/upscaling. This distinguishes it from other glitch tools in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 vs other glitch effects (e.g., datamoshing, rgb shift). The description just explains what it does without comparisons or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, which is sufficient for a simple listing tool. However, no further details are given about side effects, performance, or return characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences: one for purpose and one for the parameter. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter and an output schema (which the description doesn't need to detail), the description is adequate but minimal. Missing usage context and behavioral details limit completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only defines the type as string with no description, so the description adds meaning by stating 'Absolute path to the Hyperframes project directory'. This clarifies the param's purpose, though it could include format or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'List' and the resource 'compositions in a Hyperframes project', which directly matches the tool name. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling hyperframes tools that perform other actions like capture or render.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or situations where it should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic operation (rendering a frame) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or any side effects. For a tool that likely does not modify the project, this information would be helpful but is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a single-sentence summary followed by a clear bullet list of parameters. No redundant or extraneous information. The structure is front-loaded with the key action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the tool's core purpose and parameters. Given the presence of an output schema, it need not detail return values. However, it could briefly mention that the output is an image file, which is already implied by 'as image'. It is otherwise sufficiently complete for a single-frame rendering tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose and expected values (e.g., 'Absolute path to the Hyperframes project directory'). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare type definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Render a single frame as image from a Hyperframes composition', specifying the action (render), resource (Hyperframes composition), and output (single frame image). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hyperframes_render or hyperframes_snapshot, which have different scopes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., hyperframes_render for full video rendering). It lacks 'when-not' or alternative tool suggestions, leaving the agent to infer based solely on the tool's name and purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the basic action but omits behavioral traits like side effects, intermediate files, permissions, or error handling. Limited transparency for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear purpose sentence followed by an Args list. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though the example could be integrated more tightly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and parameters. It explains the combined workflow but could add a brief note on typical usage scenarios or return value format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides useful parameter semantics: 'absolute path' for project_path, example for post_process, and auto-generated output for output_path. This compensates well but could specify valid ops.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's specific verb and resource: 'Render a Hyperframes composition and post-process with mcp-video in one step.' This distinguishes it from sibling hyperframes and video tools by combining two operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (combining two steps) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus performing the steps separately. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions the default metrics (PSNR, SSIM) but does not detail the output structure or potential side effects. Since an output schema exists, the missing behavioral details are partially compensated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a clear summary line followed by a brief parameter list. Every sentence adds value, though the docstring style is slightly verbose for a tool description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no annotations) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essentials: input paths and metrics. It lacks details on error handling or file format requirements, but overall provides sufficient context for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It defines original_path as 'original/reference video' and distorted_path as 'processed/distorted video', and metrics as 'Metrics to compute' with a default. This adds meaning beyond the schema but does not fully specify constraints or allowed values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool compares video quality between original and processed versions, with a specific verb 'compare' and resource 'video quality'. It is distinct from siblings, which focus on other video operations like editing, effects, or analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides basic usage by listing required parameters (original_path, distorted_path) and an optional metrics argument. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation by stating 'Get metadata', which is adequate but does not explicitly mention safety, error conditions (e.g., missing file), or permissions. Sufficient for a simple query tool but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for the purpose and a bullet for the argument. Every word adds value, and the most important information (what it returns) is front-loaded. No redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers core functionality and parameter semantics, but misses edge cases (file not found, unsupported formats) and does not differentiate from video_info_detailed. An output schema is present, so return values need less explanation, but usage guidance is lacking.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds critical meaning by specifying 'input_path' should be an absolute path and listing the returned metadata fields. This compensates for the bare schema, providing clear semantics for the single parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves metadata from a video file, listing specific fields (duration, resolution, codec, fps, size). This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like video_info_detailed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., video_info_detailed). No context is given for appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or situations to avoid using this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states it generates a video and returns a success dict, omitting details on side effects (e.g., file overwriting), permissions needed, or limitations (e.g., number range constraints). This is insufficient for safe autonomous invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, starting with a clear one-line summary followed by bullet-point parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite an output schema, the description lacks edge-case behavior (e.g., start > end) and doesn't explain the return dict beyond success and output_path. For a specialized tool with few parameters, it's adequate but not fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides explanations for each parameter beyond the schema field names, such as 'start: Starting number' and 'style: Optional style dict with font, size, color, glow.' This adds significant semantic value given the 0% schema coverage. However, the style dict could be more detailed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Generate animated number counter video' and 'Creates a standalone video of an animated counting number,' which precisely defines the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings like 'video_mograph_progress' by specifying the animated counting number focus.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for creating number counter animations but lacks explicit when-to-use versus alternatives like 'video_mograph_progress.' No comparison or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool's name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that no external audio files are needed and lists parameters, but it does not disclose side effects like file overwriting, permission requirements, or error behaviors. The description is adequate but missing key behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured: a brief purpose statement, a bullet list of presets, and an Args section. It is relatively concise while containing necessary information. Minor redundancy like repeating 'preset' could be trimmed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, 1 required, and an output schema exists, the description covers the purpose, available presets, parameter details, and return value. It is fairly complete, though it could mention overwrite behavior on output_path and potential errors for invalid presets.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% parameter description coverage, meaning the schema only provides names and types. The description compensates fully by providing an 'Args' section with detailed explanations for each parameter, including preset list, absolute path requirement, pitch options, duration in seconds, and intensity range. This adds significant meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it generates preset sound design elements and lists available categories, making the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like audio_synthesize, which could also generate audio.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for predefined presets but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as audio_compose or audio_synthesize. No when-not or exclusion criteria are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must cover all behavioral traits. It mentions optional flicker but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, permission requirements, or output format details beyond a dict.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two paragraphs: first line defines purpose, then concise Args list. Front-loaded, no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the context of many sibling effects, the description adequately defines the effect and return value. Could mention limitations (e.g., codec support) but overall sufficient for a simple filter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0% description coverage, so description compensates by explaining each parameter with defaults and ranges (e.g., 'Pixels per scanline', 'Line opacity 0-1'). Adds meaning beyond schema types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Apply CRT-style scanlines overlay' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling effects like chromatic_aberration or glow by focusing on the CRT monitor scanline effect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use scanlines over other effects. The description implies use for CRT-like aesthetics, but does not contrast with siblings or mention prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the effect (channel shift, noise) and return type, but does not mention side effects, destructive nature, file format limitations, or required permissions. Adequate but missing some safety/cost context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is front-loaded with purpose, followed by a structured args list and return info. No unnecessary filler. The args section could be more integrated but is clear and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With output schema mentioned and parameters well-described, the description covers core functionality. However, it lacks details on error handling, supported formats, or performance implications. Adequate for a tool with no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description adds meaning by explaining each parameter's purpose and units (e.g., amount in pixels, angle in degrees, noise amplitude 0-1). Provides defaults. Could be more precise about edge cases but adds significant value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool applies an RGB channel shift glitch effect, specifying it shifts red and blue channels in opposite directions and optionally adds per-frame noise. This distinguishes it from sibling glitch tools like glitch_cmyk_split or glitch_datamoshing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like other glitch effects. It implies usage for chromatic aberration effects but lacks guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it creates horizontal tear bands with configurable parameters affecting count, offset, and speed. It also states the return format (dict with success status and output_path). This is adequate for a non-destructive effect tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear Docstring-style format (Args, Returns). It front-loads the purpose and then details parameters. However, the Returns section is minimal (just 'Dict with success status and output_path') which could be more explicit.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and 5 parameters, the description covers all inputs and the return. However, it does not differentiate from the large set of sibling glitch tools, leaving the agent unsure which glitch effect to choose for a given task.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section explains each parameter's purpose, default values, and type. This compensates well for the missing schema documentation, though the descriptions are terse.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool applies a screen tearing glitch effect and describes the visual outcome (horizontal tear bands shifting left/right). It is distinct from sibling glitch tools like glitch_rgb_shift or glitch_datamoshing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like glitch_cmyk_split or glitch_vhs_tracking. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context-aware usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that for video inputs a representative frame is extracted, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose whether the tool modifies files, requires permissions, or has any side effects, leaving gaps in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured. It begins with a clear purpose statement, then provides parameter details in a bulleted style. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers inputs, behavior for video handling, and harmony types. However, it could mention constraints like supported image formats or file size limits, which are not addressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description's parameter explanations add significant value. It clarifies that image_path is an absolute path, lists the valid harmony types, and explains n_colors. This goes beyond the bare schema types and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: generating a color harmony palette from an image or video frame. It specifies the verb 'generate' and the resource 'palette', and distinguishes it from sibling tools like image_extract_colors by focusing on harmony theory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context about suitable scenarios, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions output_path auto-generation but does not specify whether the operation is destructive, modifies the input, or other side effects. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with no redundant sentences. It front-loads the purpose, lists presets, and explains parameters efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality. However, it lacks mention of output format or limitations. The existence of an output schema partially compensates, but more completeness would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description explains input_path, target_lufs with default and presets, and output_path auto-generation. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though more detail on format restrictions could improve.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it normalizes audio loudness to a target LUFS level, which is a specific verb and resource. It also lists common presets, distinguishing it from other audio tools like audio_effects or audio_preset.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for audio normalization but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like audio_effects or audio_preset. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description mentions auto-generated output and encoding parameters, but does not fully disclose side effects like file creation or FFmpeg usage explicitly.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Clear one-liner followed by structured parameter list. Slightly lengthy but appropriate for 11 parameters. Front-loaded with purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers all input parameters with defaults. Output schema exists (contextual signal), so return value explanation not needed. Provides enough context for a picture-in-picture operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explains all 11 parameters in detail (e.g., position formats, opacity range, CRF range). Adds essential meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Starts with 'Picture-in-picture: overlay a video on top of another' clearly stating the purpose. Distinguishes from siblings like video_layout_pip by using 'overlay' terminology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. Only describes the functionality without context for selection among many video tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states the input video is not modified, which is good, but does not mention the potential for overwriting an existing output path (noted in parameter description). The annotation destructiveHint=true is not fully explained in the description, though it may refer to output overwriting. Overall, basic disclosure but missing some behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and supported operations. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the verb 'rotate and/or flip'.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (context signal) and full parameter documentation, the description is nearly complete. It lacks details about output format or codec, but those are likely covered by the output schema. Slightly more context on when to use this tool would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline expectation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool rotates and/or flips an existing video and renders a new output file, specifying supported operations (right-angle rotations, horizontal/vertical flips). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like video_crop or video_resize by focusing on orientation changes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., video_crop, video_resize). It is implied by the name and description, but no when-not-to-use or sibling comparisons are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states 'write metadata tags' but does not clarify whether it overwrites or merges existing tags, or if it modifies the input file versus creating a new output. The auto-generation of output_path suggests a new file, but this is not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one line for purpose and three lines for arguments, with no superfluous words. Efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers all three parameters with examples, and the output schema exists to explain return values. However, it lacks details on metadata tag limitations or behavior (merge vs replace), and does not mention any prerequisites or side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds crucial meaning: input_path is absolute, metadata is a dict with an example, and output_path is auto-generated if omitted. This exceeds the bare schema types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool writes metadata tags to video/audio files, with a specific verb ('write') and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like video_read_metadata.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for writing metadata but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like video_read_metadata or other video editing tools. No exclusion or alternative guidance provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions creating a layered track and returning success/output_path, but does not disclose whether output_path overwrites existing files, or any side effects like file system permissions. Basic transparency, but missing details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively concise, using bullet points in Args. However, it repeats the first sentence 'Compose multiple audio events...' and 'Creates a layered audio track...' which is slightly redundant. Still efficient overall.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the input parameters and return value in a way that is sufficient for understanding the tool's usage. Given the complexity (array of objects without a predefined schema), it provides enough context. Missing elements like error handling or file overwrite behavior are minor gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by detailing the structure of sequence items (type, at, duration, freq/frequency, name, volume, waveform) and explaining output_path. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema, though the schema's additionalProperties:true leaves some ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool composes multiple audio events into a timed sequence, using specific verbs like 'Compose' and 'Creates a layered audio track'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'audio_synthesize' (single sound generation) and 'audio_preset' (preset sounds) by emphasizing the combination of multiple events.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for creating timed sequences from multiple events, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. No guidance on prerequisites or comparison with sibling tools is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains the effect (RGB split) and parameters, but does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, or file requirements. Adequate but could be more detailed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise with a clear intro, Args section, and Returns. Every sentence adds value. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, parameters, and return value. For a simple video effect, this is near complete. Could mention input video existence or that it's an effect applied to video, but not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Adds meaningful descriptions for all 4 parameters beyond the schema, which only has names and defaults. Describes intensity as 'Pixel offset amount', angle as 'Separation direction'. Also explains return value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Apply chromatic aberration - RGB channel separation' with a specific verb and resource. Mentions it's a trendy RGB split effect for glitch aesthetics, but does not explicitly distinguish from similar sibling tools like glitch_rgb_shift.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage in tech/glitch contexts but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. No when-not or alternative tool names are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the glow effect but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive, if it modifies the input file, performance implications, or side effects. The existence of input/output paths suggests non-destructive creation, but this is not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, a one-sentence elaboration, a clear args list with explanations, and a returns note. It is front-loaded with purpose and contains no extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers all parameters effectively and returns a dict with status and output_path. While it does not address edge cases or required permissions, the output schema exists to clarify returns. For a single-effect tool with moderate complexity, it is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining each parameter: intensity as 'Glow strength 0-1', radius as 'Blur radius in pixels', threshold as 'Brightness threshold 0-1', all with defaults. This goes beyond the schema which only provides types and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Apply bloom/glow effect for highlights' and 'Creates a soft glow around bright areas of the video,' clearly defining the tool's specific purpose. This differentiates it from sibling effect tools like effect_chromatic_aberration, effect_noise, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through the purpose statement (e.g., for highlights), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. Context is implied but not elaborated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. While it mentions it writes to an output path, it does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, whether it modifies the original, or any permission requirements. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two brief introductory sentences followed by a structured parameter list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with 5 parameters. The description covers all parameters with defaults, explanations, and even a return value summary. Given that an output schema exists (not shown but indicated), the description is fully sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description includes a detailed parameter list with meanings, defaults, and ranges (e.g., intensity 0-1, mode options). This adds significant value beyond the plain schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Apply film grain or digital noise' and specifies it 'Adds texture noise to video for vintage or lo-fi aesthetics.' This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like effect_glow or effect_scanlines.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for vintage/lo-fi aesthetics but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like effect_scanlines or glitch effects. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of transparency. It describes the temporal sampling mechanism and notes GPU dependency, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the input file is modified), performance implications, or error conditions. A richer disclosure would improve trustworthiness.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is adequately sized with a clear first sentence for purpose, followed by an explanation and then structured args. The algorithm detail is concise, though the description could be slightly more streamlined by removing the illustrative sentence, which is helpful but not strictly necessary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema), the description covers input paths, parameter ranges, and return value. It lacks edge-case handling (e.g., invalid depth) and does not explain the output schema beyond a dict, but for the parameter count it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain each parameter. It does so for all four: input_path (absolute path), output_path (optional), depth (range 1-120, default 30), direction (0-3 mapping). It adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying allowed values and defaults, though it could more explicitly connect depth to the effect's trade-offs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool applies a slit-scan temporal displacement effect, explaining that each row/column is sampled from past frames. This specific verb-resource pair distinguishes it from sibling glitch effects like glitch_cmyk_split or glitch_datamoshing, which focus on color channel or data corruption rather than temporal smearing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions that Node.js and GPU are required, setting a prerequisite but not explicitly guiding when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not advise against use in certain scenarios or compare to similar effects, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the effect description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states it returns detailed info including scene changes and dominant colors, implying read-only behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or safe. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: one introductory sentence, then a structured Args/Returns list. No unnecessary words, and the important info is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, no annotations, an output schema exists but is not shown), the description covers purpose, parameter, and return fields thoroughly. It is complete for a metadata retrieval tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% for the single parameter, but the description adds meaning: 'Absolute path to input video.' This clarifies the format and required content beyond the schema's type string.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get extended video metadata' and lists specific return fields (duration, fps, resolution, bitrate, has_audio, scene_changes), distinguishing it from sibling 'video_info' which likely returns basic info. The verb 'Get' and resource 'extended video metadata' are specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like video_info, video_read_metadata, or video_ai_scene_detect. No context on prerequisites or use cases is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the preview is fast and low-resolution, but it does not mention behavioral traits such as whether the original video is modified, output format, performance characteristics, or any side effects. The description lacks sufficient behavioral context for safe tool selection.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for the purpose followed by a clean, structured argument list. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the tool's purpose, key parameters, and basic behavior. However, it could be slightly more complete by mentioning output format or typical use cases, but overall it is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage (context signals), meaning the raw schema provides no meaning beyond types and defaults. The description adds clear, concise explanations for all three parameters (input_path, output_path, scale_factor), including a default explanation for scale_factor. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate a fast low-resolution preview for quick review.' It uses a specific verb (generate) and resource (preview), and it distinguishes itself among many video-processing siblings by focusing on low-resolution preview generation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for quick review but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like video_trim, video_resize, or other video tools. No when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses auto-generated output path and feather effect, but with no annotations, it misses side effects like overwriting behavior or mutation of input. Could be more transparent about file operations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise with main action front-loaded. The Args block adds some redundancy but overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers core functionality and all parameters. Output schema exists so return values are covered. Could add context on file format constraints or destructive nature.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Adds meaning beyond schema by explaining input_path as absolute path, shape options, auto-generation of output_path, and feather radius in pixels. Schema has 0% coverage, so description compensates well.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Apply a geometric shape mask to a video' with specific shape options (circle, rounded_rect, oval). Distinguishes from sibling 'video_apply_mask' by focusing on geometric shapes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage for geometric masks but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like 'video_apply_mask'. No when-not-to or prerequisite information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the algorithm (layered sin/cos for fBm) and parameter effects, but omits details like whether the operation is destructive to the input (it writes to output_path) or computational cost.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a summary, technical explanation, argument list, and return type. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters and an output schema (implied by return description), the description covers the effect, parameters, and return value. Lacks error conditions and usage context, but is sufficient for basic selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description provides a complete Args block detailing each parameter with defaults and descriptions, significantly adding meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with 'Apply turbulent displacement glitch effect,' which clearly states the verb and resource. It further explains the use of fractal Brownian motion noise for organic-looking displacement, distinguishing it from other glitch effects like cmyk_split or datamoshing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
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 the effect is for organic displacement but does not compare to other glitch tools or state prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It specifies that the tool simulates analog noise, color bleed, and rolling bands, and outputs a dictionary with success status and output path. It does not mention potential errors or side effects, but for a simple effect tool, this is minimally adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a short opening line explaining the effect, followed by a clear list of parameters. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though the parameter list could be slightly more compact.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's medium complexity (6 parameters, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description covers the purpose, parameters, and return value adequately. It does not delve into edge cases or error handling, but is sufficient for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates fully. Each parameter is explained with context (e.g., 'Tracking error intensity (0-1)', 'Red channel shift in pixels'), adding meaning beyond the schema's types and defaults. The return value is also described.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool applies a VHS tracking error glitch effect, with a specific verb ('apply') and resource ('VHS tracking error glitch effect'). It distinguishes from sibling glitch tools by specifying the VHS analog noise style.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for VHS-style glitch effects but does not explicitly state when to use it versus other glitch tools or provide exclusions. The agent must infer from the effect description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description well discloses behavior: extracts dominant colors, optionally uses Claude Vision (requires API key), handles video by extracting a frame, and defaults n_colors to 5. No side effects or destructive actions mentioned, which is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise with a clear summary and structured Args section. A bit verbose but every sentence adds value; could be slightly tighter but well-organized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers main behaviors and parameters; output schema handles return values. Lacks explicit mention of return format (e.g., colors as hex codes) but sufficient given output schema exists. No guidance on prerequisites like image path existence.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds full meaning: image_path (absolute path, video handling), use_ai (requires API key), n_colors (default 5). Each parameter explained beyond schema titles/types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it analyzes a product image or video frame to extract colors and optionally generate an AI description. It distinguishes from siblings like image_extract_colors and image_generate_palette by being product-focused and supporting video frames.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., image_extract_colors for simple color extraction). The description implies product context but doesn't provide when-not or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses the algorithm (K-means clustering), output types (hex, RGB, CSS names, percentage), and special case for video files. No missing behavioral traits, though it could mention format limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with clear sections, though the 'Args' block could be integrated into the narrative. No redundant information, and it front-loads the core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema (not shown but exists), the description adequately covers inputs and behavior. It addresses video handling and algorithm, though it could note potential file format support.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates fully. It explains image_path as an absolute path with video handling, and n_colors with range (1-20) and default (5), adding significant value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool extracts dominant colors from an image or video frame using K-means clustering. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like image_generate_palette by specifying extraction rather than generation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like image_generate_palette or analyze_product. It provides minimal context, only hinting at video frame extraction behavior.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool reads from a file, but does not mention behavior for missing files, invalid paths, or absence of blocks. The name 'read' suggests non-destructive operation, but additional details would improve transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences plus a parameter line. It front-loads the purpose and includes necessary detail without any extraneous information. Every sentence serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the input and core functionality. For a simple read tool, it is mostly complete, though it could mention what happens if the file is not found or if no blocks exist.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'path' is well-documented with the requirement of an absolute path and the acceptable targets (style.md file or directory containing it). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, which only specifies a string type. While it could include more constraints, it is sufficiently clear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reads STYLE_ and NEG_ blocks from a style.md file or project directory. The verb 'Read' and the specific resource distinguish it from siblings, which are all in different domains (audio, video, glitch, etc.).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need to retrieve style blocks from a style.md file, but it does not provide explicit when/when-not guidance or mention alternatives. Since no sibling tool has similar functionality, the implied context suffices but lacks explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It details parameter behavior (shadow, start_time, duration, CRF, preset) and explains output_path auto-generation. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool modifies the original file or creates a new one, missing a key behavioral aspect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description begins with a clear one-line summary and uses a well-structured list for parameters. While slightly verbose, it is organized and front-loaded. Every line serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 12 parameters with 2 required, the description explains all parameters sufficiently. An output schema exists, so return values are covered. Missing are potential side effects or prerequisites, but overall it is complete enough for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides thorough explanations for all 12 parameters, including examples for 'position' (named, pixel, percentage). This adds significant value beyond the schema, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Overlay text on a video (titles, captions, watermarks).' It uses a specific verb ('overlay') and resource ('text on a video'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'video_add_texts' (plural) and 'video_subtitles'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. There is no explicit context for selecting this tool among the many video siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains the operation and output format but does not disclose whether the input video is modified, potential limitations, or side effects. It is adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: two sentences plus clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and there is no fluff. Well-structured for quick parsing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema, the description's brief mention of return format is sufficient. It covers both parameters well but could specify accepted video formats or error behavior. Overall, fairly complete for a simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well by explaining input_path as 'Absolute path to input video' and threshold with range (0-1) and default (0.3). This adds significant value beyond the schema's type-only definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Auto-detect scene changes and create chapters' and explains it analyzes video for scene cuts and returns chapter timestamps. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like video_detect_scenes by explicitly mentioning chapter creation with description tuples.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when auto-generating chapters from scene detection but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like video_detect_scenes. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It describes inputs and output but does not cover side effects like file overwriting or required permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear first sentence, followed by structured Args and Returns. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Explains all parameters and return format, but lacks details like validation of layout strings or clip count constraints. Output schema exists but is not shown.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter (e.g., clips, layout, gap with defaults) beyond the schema's minimal titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create grid-based multi-video layout' and lists example grid patterns. It uniquely identifies the tool's function among siblings like video_layout_pip.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. The tool's name implies grid use cases, but without comparison to siblings like video_layout_pip, the agent must infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates 'burn' which suggests permanent embedding of subtitles, but lacks details on side effects like overwriting existing subtitles, format support beyond SRT/VTT, or behavior when output_path is omitted. Since no annotations exist, the description carries full burden but provides only minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with a single sentence followed by parameter lists. It is efficient but could be slightly more structured with a clearer separation of purpose and parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the small parameter count (3) and presence of output schema, the description covers basic usage. However, it omits details like auto-generation logic for output_path or error conditions, making it slightly incomplete for a fully self-contained tool definition.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description compensates fully by explaining each parameter (e.g., 'Absolute path to the input video') and indicating that output_path is optional with auto-generation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Burn subtitles (SRT/VTT) into a video', specifying the exact verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like video_generate_subtitles and video_subtitles_styled by focusing on burning existing subtitle files.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
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 like video_generate_subtitles or video_subtitles_styled. The context from sibling names implies differentiation but the description does not clarify usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry burden. It explains checks but does not explicitly state it is read-only or describe side effects, permissions, or failure handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise with front-loaded purpose and structured args/returns, though slightly redundant listing checks then re-listing in args.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers all parameters and mentions return type; given output schema exists (context signal), description is sufficient for agent to understand inputs and outputs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but description adds extensive details for overlays (keys, optional fields) and explains video_width, video_height, background_color, greatly enhancing parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it validates text overlays for visual failure modes, listing specific checks (overlap, contrast, positioning, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings like video_design_quality_check.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It mentions 'before rendering', giving context, but does not discuss when to use this versus alternatives like video_design_quality_check or video_fix_design_issues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (destructiveHint=true) are complemented by the description stating that output_path may be overwritten and that input files are read-only. This adds behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it does not cover error handling or permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no extraneous information. It front-loads the core action and then lists supported features, making it easy to scan for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (8 parameters, output schema), the description covers the essential behavior: read-only inputs, overwritable output, and supported controls. It does not explain return values (output schema exists), error conditions, or prerequisites, but it is sufficient for typical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description enumerates control types ('named, pixel, and percentage positions plus opacity, margin, CRF, and preset controls') but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It serves as a concise summary.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('overlay an image watermark onto an existing video') and the resource ('render a new output file'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like video_overlay by explicitly mentioning 'watermark' and specifying supported position types and controls.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for watermarking but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as video_overlay or video_add_text. No 'when not to use' or alternative tool names are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description provides basic behavior (mixing, volume, loop, output) but lacks error handling, file constraints, or mixing details like sample rate handling. Incomplete for full transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Efficiently structured with a one-line summary followed by structured args and returns. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers all parameters and return value. Lacks details on looping behavior (what happens when loop=true?) and error cases. Good but could be more complete for a 3-param tool with no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: tracks as list of configs with file, volume, start, loop; duration as total seconds; output_path as absolute path. Adds crucial meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it layers multiple audio tracks with volume mixing, distinguishing it from siblings like audio_effects or audio_synthesize. The verb 'layer' and resource 'audio tracks' are specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage for mixing multiple WAV files with volume control, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives mentioned despite many sibling audio tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the process and supported effects but does not mention file overwrite behavior, performance considerations, or permissions. It is transparent about what it does but lacks potential behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a brief summary followed by a parameter list. Every sentence adds value, no unnecessary words. Efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers all parameters, effects, and return value. Minor omission: no mention of file overwrite behavior or limitations (e.g., max duration). However, given complexity, it is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It provides defaults and detailed explanation of the effects parameter with sub-keys (envelope, fade_in, fade_out, reverb, lowpass). This significantly enhances understanding beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Generate audio procedurally using synthesis' and 'Creates WAV files from scratch using mathematical waveforms'. It distinguishes from siblings like audio_compose (which likely composes existing audio) by emphasizing no external audio files needed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for generating audio from scratch using synthesis, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like audio_compose or audio_effects. No 'when not to use' or direct comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the effect's mechanics (sampling points, 3D rotation, depth displacement) and prerequisites, but does not reveal side effects, mutability, or required permissions. The return format is mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is succinct and well-organized: a one-line effect summary, a detailed technical explanation, a bulleted argument list, and a return note. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with six parameters and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality, all parameters, and the return value. It mentions the GPU requirement and specifies input/output as video paths. Minor gaps exist (e.g., performance implications), but overall it is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All six parameters are individually described with clear meaning, ranges (e.g., density 0-1), and defaults. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage, providing essential context beyond the schema's type-only definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool applies a 'point cloud rendering effect' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by describing a unique 3D-rotated grid with depth-based displacement, setting it apart from other glitch effects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lacks explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance, but it implies usage for creating volumetric point cloud looks. It mentions a prerequisite (Node.js + GPU) but does not differentiate from similar effects like glitch_depth_splatting.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, so description adds value by clarifying 'source video and audio are read only; output_path is created or overwritten'. This provides context about file safety and overwriting behavior beyond what annotations offer.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence defines the core action, and the second adds safety and feature details. Information is front-loaded and earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, destructive hint, output schema exists), the description covers all essential behaviors (read-only sources, overwriting output, configurable options) without needing to describe return values due to presence of output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only lists parameter names (volume, fade-in, etc.) without adding new information beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. No additional semantic meaning is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb-resource combination: 'Add, replace, or mix an audio file into an existing video'. It lists configurable options (volume, fade, mix, start time) and distinguishes the action from similar tools like video_add_generated_audio by covering multiple modes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by listing functionality (add, replace, mix, volume, fade) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like video_add_generated_audio or video_extract_audio. No exclusions or conditions for use are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the mask semantics (white=visible, black=transparent) and the feather parameter, but it does not mention whether the operation is destructive, what happens to existing output files, or any permissions or format requirements. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (one introductory sentence followed by four parameter lines) and well-structured, with the core action front-loaded. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the parameters adequately. However, it lacks information about prerequisites (e.g., video format compatibility) and potential error conditions. For a tool with moderate complexity, it is nearly complete but could be slightly more thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain the parameters. It does so effectively: input_path and mask_path are described with absolute path requirements and mask color meanings, feather includes default and unit (pixels), and output_path explains auto-generation behavior. This provides clear semantic meaning beyond the schema's bare types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Apply an image mask to a video with edge feathering.' It uses a specific verb (apply) and resource (image mask to a video), and the mention of 'edge feathering' distinguishes it from sibling tools like video_chroma_key (color-based) or video_shape_mask (shape-based).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the action is clear, there is no guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tools (e.g., video_chroma_key, video_luma_key) might be more appropriate for different masking needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the tool extracts a single frame, implying non-destructive behavior, but does not mention requirements (e.g., file permissions, supported formats) or potential side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using a single line for the purpose and a bulleted list for parameters. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature of the tool and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects. It could include a note on output format or resolution, but the current information is sufficient for a basic extraction task.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning to each parameter: input_path as 'Absolute path to the video', timestamp as 'Time in seconds to extract', and output_path as 'Where to save the frame. Auto-generated if omitted.' This compensates fully for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Extract a single frame from a video for visual verification' clearly states the action (extract), the resource (a single frame from a video), and the purpose (visual verification). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like video_export_frames which export multiple frames.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions 'visual verification,' it lacks comparisons to similar tools like video_export_frames or video_analyze, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses all parameters with defaults, the return value, and the basic operation. However, it omits potential side effects like file size impact or required permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is moderately concise and well-structured with a clear docstring format. A few redundant phrases could be trimmed, but overall it efficiently conveys all necessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of 10 parameters and the presence of an output schema (implied by context), the description fully explains purpose, all parameters, and return value, making it complete for tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description specifies each parameter's role (e.g., 'position: Position (top-left, top-right, bottom-left, bottom-right). Default bottom-right.'), adding essential meaning beyond the schema's type/default.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Picture-in-picture overlay' and 'Overlay a smaller video on top of a main video.' This is a specific verb-resource pair that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like video_layout_grid or video_overlay.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as video_layout_grid or video_overlay. The description focuses solely on parameters without contextual hints for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the renderer 'fails closed on stale inputs, capabilities, policy, resume state, cancellation, or verification failure and never promotes failed output,' providing detailed failure behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. The second sentence lists failure conditions efficiently, though it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) for readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (which likely documents return values), the description covers the tool's main action, prerequisites, and failure modes. However, it omits details about how parameters like cancel_file and resume_receipt affect behavior, which may be important for complex renders.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to 'approved_repair_ids' and 'plan' by explaining their roles (e.g., 'Approval ids must name safe repairs in this exact immutable plan'), but does not explain the remaining four parameters (cancel_file, save_receipt, resume_receipt, keep_intermediates).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Render') and resource ('approved safe repairs from a reviewed rescue plan'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like video_rescue_plan (which creates plans) and video_rescue_inspect (which inspects) by focusing on the rendering step.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage after a rescue plan is reviewed and repairs are approved, stating 'Approval ids must name safe repairs in this exact immutable plan.' It provides clear context but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden and adds good behavioral context: mentions motion vector analysis, explains smoothing (higher=more stable), zooming to avoid black borders, and auto-generation of output path. However, it lacks disclosure of potential side effects, performance implications, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a single-sentence purpose followed by a clean Args list with four parameters. Every sentence adds value, no fluff, and the main action is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers parameter behavior well but omits details like output file format, quality implications, or potential failures. It is mostly complete for basic usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description provides meaningful explanations for all four parameters: input_path as absolute path, smoothing strength with default and effect, zooming percentage purpose, and output_path auto-generation. This compensates fully for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Stabilize a shaky video using motion vector analysis,' which includes a specific verb, resource, and method. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like video_trim or video_crop, which do different operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as preconditions, typical use cases, or when not to use it. It only describes parameters, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions that output_dir is auto-generated if omitted, but does not describe side effects (e.g., file overwriting, temporary files), permissions needed, or failure modes. The 'human review' hint implies a visual output, but behavioral details are minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: two sentences plus a clear parameter list. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description covers the essential purpose and parameter details. It lacks information on input video format requirements or behavior when extraction fails, but for a tool with output schema, it is fairly complete. Minor gaps prevent a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: input_path (absolute path), output_dir (save directory, auto-generated if omitted), frame_count (number of key frames). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type and default fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Extract key frames and create a storyboard grid', specifying the resource (key frames/storyboard) and purpose (human review). This distinguishes it from siblings like video_extract_frame (single frame) and video_export_frames (batch export).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives (e.g., video_extract_frame, video_export_frames). The usage context is implied by the purpose, but no when-not-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: the accurate-seeking option, default fast seeking landing on keyframes, and the exclusivity of duration and end. It does not mention whether the operation is destructive or any permission requirements, but the provided details are substantial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with a one-line purpose, and structured with a clear Args list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is fairly complete given the 6 parameters and output schema existence. It covers key behaviors and parameter interactions, though it omits potential errors or limitations. The output schema likely fills the return value gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds critical meaning: timestamp formats, exclusivity between duration and end, auto-generated output_path, and the accurate flag behavior. This significantly enhances understanding beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Trim a video clip by start time and duration', which is a specific verb ('trim') and resource ('video clip'). This is unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like video_crop or video_edit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when-not to use it or offer comparisons to sibling tools such as video_crop or video_edit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the effect (darkened edges), parameters, and return value. It does not mention any destructive actions or permissions, but the behavior is clear and non-contradictory.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a front-loaded purpose, followed by clear parameter documentation. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers all inputs and the return value (Dict with success status and output_path), leaving no gaps for an agent to invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the Args section in the description explains each parameter's meaning, range, and default values (e.g., intensity 0-1, radius 0-1, smoothness 0-1). This fully compensates for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Apply vignette effect - darkened edges' and explains it creates a darkened border that draws attention to the center. This distinguishes it from sibling effects like chromatic aberration or glow.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus other effect tools or alternatives. It only describes what the tool does without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains the effect and all parameters, but lacks details on side effects, performance, or that it creates a new file without modifying the input. Annotations are absent, so description carries full burden.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences plus a structured args list. It front-loads purpose and contains no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description sufficiently covers parameters and return value for a moderate complexity tool, but could include typical use cases or edge cases for additional completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description provides explanations for all 6 parameters, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, could include constraints like frequency range 0-1.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool applies a scanline jitter glitch effect, displacing random horizontal rows for a CRT look. It uses a specific verb 'apply' and distinguishes from sibling glitch and effect tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for a CRT malfunction look but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like other glitch effects or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states 'Read' implying a safe read-only operation, which is sufficient. However, it does not discuss edge cases, error handling, or any permissions needed, which would improve transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with two sentences and a parameter list. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. There is no unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema available, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., file must exist) and the format of the storyboard table. Given the tool's simplicity, it is minimally adequate but could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description provides detailed meaning for the 'path' parameter, specifying it must be an absolute path to storyboard.md or a directory containing it. This adds critical context beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reads a PUSHING CREATION storyboard table from a specific file or directory. It provides a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools which are all video/audio processing tools, none of which read storyboards.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The purpose is clearly defined, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or mention of alternatives. However, the sibling list contains no other storyboard read tool, so usage context is implicitly clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses key behavioral traits: source read-only, output may overwrite existing files, and default centering behavior. This adds value beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true) without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the core action and gracefully handles details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters and an output schema, the description covers essential aspects: two crop modes, default behavior, source read-only, and output path auto-generation. Lacks format/performance details but sufficient for a crop tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and schema descriptions are detailed. The description adds marginal value by summarizing two crop modes and default centering, but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Crop an existing video to a rectangular region or centered percentage crop and render a new output file.' It specifies the verb (crop), resource (video), and distinguishes from sibling tools like video_resize or video_rotate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context ('source video is read only', 'x/y default to a centered crop when omitted') but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose rectangular vs. percentage crop or mention of alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description explains basic behavior (export frames, auto-generate output dir) and parameter defaults, but lacks details on file naming, overwrite behavior, performance impact, or non-destructive nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear docstring format, using bulleted args to present parameter details without extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given moderate complexity, 0% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains all parameters and usage, making the tool fully usable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds full meaning to all 4 parameters, including path requirements, default values, format options, and auto-generation of output_dir, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Export frames from a video as individual images,' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'video_extract_frame' which exports a single frame.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for extracting frames at a given FPS, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'video_extract_frame' or conditions in which it is not suitable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value beyond annotations by stating that the source is unchanged and output is created/overwritten. It aligns with destructiveHint and readOnlyHint, and provides context on file handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no wasted words. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function and key parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the main functionality and matches the tool's complexity. The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Minor omission: no mention of optional parameters like crf and preset, but these are in the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the description reuses some parameter info but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. It provides a brief usage example for fade_in and fade_out, but the schema already covers them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'render' and the resource 'fade-in and/or fade-out effects onto an existing video'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by specifying the exact effect and that the source file remains unmodified.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly explains when to use fade_in vs fade_out and mentions output_path overwriting. It does not directly compare to alternatives, but the specific fade effect and sibling context make the usage clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructive behavior. Description adds that source is unchanged and factor is validated against speed limits, providing useful context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with main purpose followed by important details. No redundant phrases.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers main behavioral aspects; output schema exists for return values. Could mention potential overwrite of output path, but schema handles that.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds no parameter-specific info beyond what's already in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it renders a new video with changed speed, preserving source. This distinguishes it from siblings like video_trim or video_reverse.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explains effect of factor values and validation against limits, implying when to use. Could explicitly exclude use cases where other tools are more appropriate, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Explains the iterative feedback algorithm, parameter defaults, and return value. Mentions required dependencies (Node.js + GPU). Does not discuss error handling or file overwrite behavior, but covers essential behaviors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded with one-sentence summary, followed by a concise explanation of the effect, then a well-structured Args list. No unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, algorithm, parameters, return value, and dependencies. With 6 parameters and complex behavior, this is sufficient. Could include example usage or limitations, but remains comprehensive for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. Provides clear descriptions for all 6 parameters including types, purposes, and default values. Adds meaning beyond the schema's titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool applies a digital feedback glitch effect, explaining the iterative frame feedback process with scale/rotation transform. Distinguishes from sibling glitch tools like glitch_rgb_shift by describing the specific ghostly trails and recursive visual patterns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
States prerequisites (Node.js + GPU) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No comparison to sibling glitch tools or exclusions for certain use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It states what the tool returns (matching tools with names, descriptions, required parameters) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, pagination, or behavior on no matches. This is adequate but not exhaustive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, consisting of three sentences. It is well-structured with a heading, usage guidance, and a parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, when to use it, what it returns, and the single parameter. No additional information is necessary for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by describing the query parameter as a 'Search term' and providing examples ('blur', 'resize', etc.). This clarifies the expected input beyond the schema's type-only definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool searches registered MCP tools by keyword. It specifies the action (search), the resource (registered MCP tools), and the scope (by keyword). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are the actual tools to be searched.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Use this when you need to find the right tool for a task without reading all 91 tool descriptions.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for a search tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains the core transformation (expand into prompts) but omits side effects, error handling, or performance characteristics. With no annotations, the agent lacks insight into whether this is read-only, idempotent, or what occurs with invalid inputs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence for purpose followed by a bulleted argument list. It is front-loaded, scannable, and contains no superfluous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers purpose and parameters adequately. However, it lacks workflow integration hints (e.g., using storyboard_read prior) and does not address prerequisites or failure modes. Given the output schema exists, return values are acceptable, but completeness for a tool with 2 required params could include more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite zero schema description coverage, the description adds critical meaning: project_path must be absolute and contain specific files, shot can be an id or row number. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Expand one storyboard shot') and resource ('storyboard shot'), yielding specific outputs ('prompt and negative_prompt strings'). It is distinct from sibling tools like storyboard_read, which reads the entire storyboard, and style_pack_read, which reads style files.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit instructions for each parameter, including required file contents (style.md and storyboard.md) and shot identification format. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or exclude cases (e.g., after reading storyboard with storyboard_read).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses automatic overlap detection and vertical distribution of texts at the same named position. It also mentions FFmpeg pass. However, it does not detail return value structure or performance implications, though output schema exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with purpose, followed by a structured args list. It is slightly verbose with detailed parameter descriptions but remains organized and clear. Could be more compact without losing essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (6 parameters, nested text objects), the description covers all parameters and auto-layout behavior. Output schema exists, so return values are not needed. The description is sufficient for understanding tool operation and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description provides explicit details for all 6 parameters, including nested structure for 'texts' dict items (text, position, font, size, etc.), and parameter defaults (crf=23, auto_layout=True). This fully compensates for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Overlay multiple text elements on a video in a single FFmpeg pass.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'video_add_text' which adds a single text.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for adding multiple texts with automatic layout, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like video_subtitles or video_text_animated. No when-not or exclusion criteria provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that LUT is applied with FFmpeg lut3d and that reference triggers color balance matching, but no annotations are provided and additional behavioral details (e.g., overwrite policy) are absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, well-structured with a docstring-style Args section, and front-loads the main purpose without unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers input parameters and their interactions; output schema exists so return values are not needed. Minor omissions like performance constraints do not significantly detract.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all five parameters, including style preset options and the precedence between reference and LUT.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool applies a color grade to a video using three methods (LUT, style, reference), distinguishing it from other video tools in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Describes the three methods and their precedence (reference overrides style, LUT overrides both), providing clear guidance on when to use each, though lacking explicit comparison to non-grading video tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses input types, dependencies, independent sub-analyses, and output options. While it could mention potential failures or rate limits, it covers essential behavioral traits beyond basic parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with a clear purpose and then structured with a concise paragraph on input types and dependencies, followed by a detailed parameter list. The parameter list is lengthy but necessary and well-organized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (14 parameters, multiple sub-analyses, and dependencies), the description is complete. It covers input handling, prerequisites (yt-dlp, openai-whisper), independence of analyses, and output file options. An output schema exists, so return values are already documented.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains each parameter: `whisper_model` sizes, `language` auto-detect, `scene_threshold` range (0.0-1.0), and boolean flags for each analysis. This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Comprehensive video analysis — transcript, metadata, scenes, audio, quality, chapters, colors.' It uses a specific verb (analyze) and resource (video) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a one-stop analysis tool, unlike siblings that focus on individual aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear guidance on input types (local file or HTTP/HTTPS URL) and mentions dependencies (yt-dlp for streaming platforms). However, it does not explicitly indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like `video_detect_scenes` or `video_ai_transcribe`, lacking exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint true, but description adds value by clarifying input clips are read-only and unchanged, output may overwrite, and validation errors are reported. This goes beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. No filler; every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With output schema present, description covers purpose, parameters, behavior, and errors. Minor omission: no mention of output format or codec prerequisites, but implied by 'rendered output file' and validation errors. Still highly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds significant meaning: clips are 'ordered absolute paths', output_path auto-generates or overwrites, transition lists examples, transitions overrides transition, transition_duration must fit clips. Each parameter gains context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool concatenates two or more video clips into one rendered output file. The verb 'concatenate' and resource 'video clips' are specific. Among sibling tools, none do concatenation, so it is well differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives like video_edit or video_compose. Usage is implied through the description, but lacks exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses fail-closed behavior, validation checks (op allowlist, @ref resolution, ordering, param introspection, path safety), and error codes. Lacks mention of authentication or permission requirements but is thorough for a validation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured: opening sentence gives purpose, followed by detailed validator behavior, then return format and args. Front-loaded with key info. Slightly verbose but each sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With output schema present, description adequately covers validation scope, error codes, and parameter. Provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when to invoke and what to expect. Could mention that return is a verdict object, but output schema covers that.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Single parameter spec_path is described as 'Absolute path to the workflow job-spec JSON file', adding meaning beyond the schema (which only had title 'Spec Path'). Since schema coverage is 0%, description compensates effectively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly specifies 'Validate an agent workflow job-spec without rendering any media', distinguishing it from sibling tools like video_workflow_render and video_workflow_inspect. The verb 'validate' and resource 'agent workflow job-spec' are specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage context (validation without rendering) and distinguishes from alternatives by focusing on structural validation. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear given siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Explains that it extracts pseudo-depth from luminance and renders points, and returns a dict with success status and output_path, implying non-destructive output. Lacks explicit statement about side effects or file modification.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise and well-structured: overview sentence, elaboration, then clear Args list with defaults, and Returns. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers all parameters, return format, prerequisite, and overall behavior. Despite having an output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to understand input, output, and constraints for a complex effect tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% coverage, but description adds meaningful explanations for all 6 parameters including defaults and a range for threshold, significantly enhancing understanding beyond the schema's bare types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it applies a depth-based point splatting effect, specifies the resource (video), and distinguishes from many sibling glitch tools by mentioning pseudo-depth and 3D particle-like appearance.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Mentions a prerequisite (Node.js + GPU) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the many other glitch effects available in the sibling list. Usage context is implied but not guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly states the tool analyzes without processing video and returns estimated output properties. This implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. It could add details on prerequisites or side effects, but current disclosure is solid.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a lead sentence, explanatory paragraph, and an args list. It is front-loaded but slightly lengthy due to the parameter list; however, each line adds value. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 7 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the primary behavior and parameter roles. It lacks mention of error handling, prerequisites (e.g., template existence), and details on how input_path is used when optional. Still, it is sufficiently complete for most use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds all parameter meaning. It explains each parameter's role: template with allowed values, input_path for duration probing, duration as override, caption/title for specific templates, music_path, and outro_path for YouTube only. This far exceeds the schema's empty descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: preview what a video template would do before rendering. It specifies output details (list of operations, duration, resolution, file size) and that no video processing occurs, distinguishing it from rendering tools and siblings like video_preview or hyperframes_preview.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for use: before rendering, to inspect expected output. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the purpose is straightforward. Siblings like hyperframes_preview exist but are not referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains supported operations (alpha compositing, opacity, positioning, transforms, timing, masks), deferred features, and the deterministic layer-plan receipt. It also mentions dry_run for validation. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but the behavioral scope is well described without contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear first paragraph for main purpose, a second for deferred features, and a third for parameters. Every sentence adds value, no fluff, and it's appropriately front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity and presence of an output schema, the description covers inputs, features, and limitations well. It mentions the layer-plan receipt but could briefly describe the output (composited media file). Overall, it is reasonably complete for agent decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. The Args section explains each parameter: spec_path (required JSON spec), output_path (optional destination), save_layer_plan (optional receipt path), dry_run (validate without render). This adds crucial meaning beyond the schema's simple types and titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it composites ordered image/video layers from a JSON spec, listing supported features and deferred features. This provides a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from simpler siblings like video_overlay by its JSON-spec input and advanced compositing capabilities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use (for complex layer compositing with a JSON spec) and explicitly states deferred features (non-normal blend modes, rotation) as limitations, guiding agents away from using it for those. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for those cases, leaving room for improvement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses source is read-only and a new output file is produced, addressing the destructiveHint annotation with context about output overwrite. Could mention re-encoding implications but adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, usage guidance, and behavioral traits well. Output schema exists and sibling tools are differentiated, so complete for this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. Description reinforces but adds little new beyond what schema provides, so baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states re-encoding an existing video for final delivery with quality and format options, and distinguishes from video_convert. Specific verb+resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly tells when to use (publishing-ready renders) and when to use video_convert instead (container/codec conversion). Clear context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the ducking mechanism (FFmpeg sidechain compressor) and mentions that music dips during speech and recovers in pauses. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but the description is fairly transparent for a non-destructive audio operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a one-sentence summary followed by structured parameter docs. Every sentence adds value, and the main purpose is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool complexity (8 parameters, 2 required, output schema exists), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, mechanism, parameters, and typical use cases. No gaps are evident.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description includes a detailed inline docstring explaining each parameter with ranges, defaults, and behavior (e.g., 'Base music level before ducking (0-2, default 0.6)'). This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Mix background music under a video's voice with automatic ducking.' It uses specific verbs (mix, duck) and resources (video audio, background music), and distinguishes from sibling audio tools like audio_compose or audio_effects by focusing on ducking.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for usage, mentioning it's 'the standard treatment for shorts, reels, and podcast clips.' It implies when to use it, but does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives, which would elevate it to a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it validates first (fail-closed), builds a dry-run plan without rendering, lists included artifact contents (operation graph, ffprobe results, hashes, etc.), mentions file writing only for save_plan, and describes error codes. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is comprehensive and well-structured, starting with a one-line summary, then detailing artifact contents, parameters, and error behavior. It is slightly verbose but every sentence contributes value, making it efficient for its complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists, the description covers inputs, behavior, return values (plan artifact on success, error code on failure), and side effects (optional file write). No obvious gaps; it is complete for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning for all three parameters: spec_path as absolute path to JSON file, save_plan as optional path for plan JSON, variant for single named variant planning. This adds value beyond the schema definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool produces a 'no-render plan for an agent workflow job-spec' with specific verb 'produce' and resource 'plan'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like video_workflow_render by emphasizing no rendering, and from video_workflow_validate by building a dry-run plan.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
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 the tool (planning a workflow without rendering) and explains the effect of the 'variant' parameter, including error handling for unknown variants. It implies alternative tools like video_workflow_render for actual rendering, though not explicitly naming them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide destructiveHint=true, and description adds that input is read-only, output is new, and an existing output_path may be overwritten. This clarifies the destructive behavior beyond the annotation. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, usage, and behavioral notes. No filler, front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists, the description adequately covers all aspects: what the tool does, required input, behavior, and distinction from sibling. No missing information for this tool type.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds value by clarifying input_path as 'absolute path', output_path auto-generation, and listing format examples. This supplements the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Transcode an existing video' and lists example formats (mp4, webm, gif, mov). It distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'video_export' by specifying 'use video_export for final delivery presets'. Verb and resource are specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly provides usage context: 'Use this for format conversion; use video_export for final delivery presets.' This guides the agent on when to choose this tool versus its sibling. Also notes input is read-only and output is new file.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly states the tool is read-only, performs integrity checks (hash re-check), and fails closed on malformed receipts. It also describes the output structure and limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear summary, detailed explanation, and parameter description. It is slightly verbose but front-loaded with the key action. Every sentence adds value, though some phrases ('read-only' is repeated) could be trimmed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the single parameter and presence of an output schema, the description provides comprehensive details about what the tool returns: kind, schema_version, tool, versions, status summary, hash report, outputs, warnings, cleanup state, pointers, and limitations. It covers all necessary behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With only one parameter (receipt_path) and 0% schema coverage, the description adds essential meaning: it specifies the parameter is an absolute path to a receipt JSON file. This goes beyond the schema which just says 'string'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: summarizing receipts with a read-only integrity check. It specifies the types of receipts (workflow render receipt, dry-run workflow_plan artifact, layer_plan receipt) and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on inspection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states when to use the tool (for inspecting receipts) and what it does not do (render or modify). It implies not to use it for mutation operations like rendering or planning. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions or alternative tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden and fully discloses behaviors: validation fail-closed, sequential op execution, intermediate cleanup policy, resume logic with hash matching, variant handling, and return receipt structure. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is comprehensive and well-structured with clear sections, but it is somewhat lengthy. While every sentence adds value, it could be slightly more concise by moving some parameter details to the schema. However, it remains well-organized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is highly complete, covering purpose, parameters, behavior, return value (workflow receipt), error handling (fail closed), edge cases (resume, variant, batch), and cleanup. Despite the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not rely on it and provides full context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description contains an 'Args:' section that explains each parameter (spec_path, resume_receipt, etc.) in detail, including constraints like mutual exclusivity and default behavior. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Execute' the resource 'agent workflow job-spec' and the result 'provenance receipt'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like video_workflow_plan (planning) and video_workflow_validate (validation) by focusing on execution and rendering.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
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 variant vs all_variants, their mutual exclusivity, how to resume from a failed receipt, and the keep_intermediates option. It also explains the sequential execution order and fail-closed behavior, giving clear context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![kinocut MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/KyaniteLabs/kinocut/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/KyaniteLabs/kinocut)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![kinocut MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/KyaniteLabs/kinocut/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/KyaniteLabs/kinocut)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/KyaniteLabs/kinocut'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server