video_capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Probe' and 'return a capability report' imply a safe, likely read-only inspection, but it does not state whether probing executes the binaries, how long it may take, or whether anything is written to disk.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the probed components are named inline rather than padded into extra sentences.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not needed, and with no parameters the surface is small. The description is nearly complete for this tool, only missing any note about cost or runtime of the probe.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description appropriately adds no param prose because there is nothing to parameterize.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Probe') and resource ('host capabilities') and enumerates exactly what is probed (ffmpeg, whisper, c2pa), so an agent knows the scope precisely. It does not name or contrast itself against any sibling, but the capability-probing function is distinct enough in this fleet.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent would use this to check host tool availability before running pipelines. There is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or relationship to siblings like video_preflight or hyperframes_doctor that might overlap.

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