video_metric_qc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the check is fail-closed and does not invent values, which is meaningful failure semantics. However, it omits other important behavioral context such as permissions, error behavior, and whether it is read-only.

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 a single compact sentence with no filler, and the key behavioral constraint is front-loaded. It is appropriately brief for a terse definition, though the extreme brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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?

For a tool with three parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It mentions the metric areas and a fail-closed policy, but does not explain parameter meanings or when to invoke it, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable selection and invocation.

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 compensate for parameter meaning. It names duration and black metrics, but does not explain max_black_ratio, min_duration_seconds, their defaults, or how input_path is used. Parameter semantics remain largely undocumented.

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 identifies the tool as an offline metric floor check for duration, black, and loudness, which gives a concrete resource and metric set. However, it lacks a clear verb and does not distinguish itself from the many other video QC and quality-check siblings. The purpose is inferable but not sharply stated.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as video_quality_check, video_qc_vision, or video_verdict. The phrase 'Offline metric floor' implies a QC context, but no conditions, exclusions, or sibling comparisons are provided. An agent must infer usage entirely.

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