video_hook_candidates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It reveals that outputs are candidates for human pick, but says nothing about permissions, side effects, rate limits, or whether it generates files versus text. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured behavioral metadata.

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 very short and front-loaded, but it is a fragment rather than a full sentence. The internal reference '(TE.2)' is unexplained jargon that adds noise for an external agent rather than value.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is too terse to fully orient an agent. It omits what 'hook-title' means, whether thumbnails are generated images or textual concepts, and any guidance on the required topic parameter. With no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, more context is needed.

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% for three parameters (topic, count, language), and the description does not mention any parameter. It provides no semantics beyond the parameter names themselves, failing to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states the resource clearly: thumbnail and hook-title candidates. It implies generation, though no verb is given. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like video_thumbnail, but the purpose is understandable.

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 phrase 'for human pick' implies the tool is used when presenting options for human selection, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. Usage is only implied, not stated.

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