video_remote_egress_plan

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.