next_video_to_analyse

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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it discloses the transcript format, that topics and writing rules come back alongside the video, and the sentinel value video=None. The one gap is whether calling it advances a queue pointer or reserves the video — 'Repeat' implies progression but the state effect is never 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?

Front-loaded with the return contract and workflow, and the exhaustion rule lands last where it belongs. The 'YOU are the brain's reader' framing costs a clause of persona for little informational gain.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose, and the workflow is well covered. But an undocumented parameter on a stateful queue tool leaves an agent guessing about scoping and about whether a fetched video is consumed.

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?

There is one optional parameter, creator, at 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. An agent cannot tell from either source whether creator filters the queue, is ignored, or changes the return shape.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it returns one video's transcript with [mm:ss] markers, plus the known topics and the card-writing rules. It also names the sibling it feeds into (submit_claims) and the exhaustion condition, so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening another schema.

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?

Gives an explicit procedure: read the returned material, write the claims yourself, then call submit_claims, then repeat. It also states the stopping condition (video=None when nothing is left) and the reason to prefer this over an external AI key.

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