video_rescue_inspect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'inspect' and 're-check integrity' but does not specify whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects. This minimal disclosure leaves uncertainty about the tool's behavior.

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 sentence, which is concise. However, it is so brief that it lacks necessary detail. It could be expanded with more context without becoming verbose. A concise description should still be informative.

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 that there is an output schema (though not fully visible) and the tool is part of a rescue workflow with siblings, the description does not provide sufficient context about the rescue process, what the inspection entails, or how the output is used. It feels incomplete for an AI agent to understand the tool's role.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must add meaning to the single 'receipt' parameter. It only says 'Inspect a rescue plan or receipt', implying the parameter is the receipt/plan, but does not clarify its format, structure, or expected values. This adds little beyond the parameter 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 clearly states what the tool does: 'Inspect a rescue plan or receipt and re-check artifact integrity.' It uses a specific verb 'Inspect' and identifies the resource. The sibling tools video_rescue_plan and video_rescue_render help distinguish it as an inspection step in the rescue workflow. However, 'artifact integrity' could be more precise, so not a perfect 5.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or when not to use it. The sibling tools imply a workflow (plan -> inspect -> render), but the description itself offers no usage direction.

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