video_compare_quality

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.