get_video

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. "get" weakly implies a read, but the description says nothing about behavior for an unknown or invalid video_id, about whether analysis must happen first, about latency, or about the shape of the response. For a tool with a 0% annotation coverage, this becomes a real gap.

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 short fragment that can be read at a glance, so there is no wasted text. However, its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness, and it lacks essential routing information.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an untouched parameter, the description is the only source of context, and it offers two noun phrases. The meaning of "源片段統計" is ambiguous, and nothing tells an agent what it needs in order to call the tool correctly or interpret results.

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?

Only one parameter, video_id, exists, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is the only place where the parameter could be explained. It never mentions video_id, its accepted format, whether it is an internal ID or a path, or what happens if the ID is wrong. The parameter is nearly self-evident from its type, which saves this from a 1.

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 phrase "視頻元數據 + 源片段統計" names the resource (video) and the two things it returns: metadata and source-clip statistics. However, it is a noun-phrase label rather than a verb-led statement, and it gives no indication of how this differs from siblings such as list_videos or analyze_video. The purpose is inferable but not sharply defined.

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 when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no mention of any sibling tool. An agent cannot tell from this text whether to call get_video before analyze_video, or instead of list_videos.

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