video_quality_check

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It states it returns scores and recommendations but does not mention whether the tool modifies the video, requires specific permissions, or has any side effects. The read-only nature is implied by 'check' but not explicitly stated.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, then a clear list of parameters. No redundant information, front-loaded with the core action.

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 an output schema exists (documenting return values) and the tool has only two simple parameters, the description is largely complete. It could mention that the tool is read-only and does not alter the video, but the overall coverage is good.

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 description includes an Args section that explains each parameter (input_path as 'Absolute path to video file' and fail_on_warning as 'If True, treat warnings as failures'), adding meaning beyond the schema which only has titles and types. This compensates for 0% schema coverage.

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 'Run visual quality checks on a video' and lists specific metrics (brightness, contrast, saturation, audio levels, color balance). It distinguishes the tool from generic analysis tools like video_analyze by focusing on quality checks, though it does not explicitly compare to similar siblings like video_compare_quality.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., why use this over video_analyze or video_fix_design_issues). No when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are provided.

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