omni_video_ingest

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that the tool ingests video, generates transcripts and scene graphs, and returns a metadata path. However, it does not mention whether files are modified, destructive potential, authentication needs, or time/resource consumption. The description is adequate but lacks depth for a full behavioral profile.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, operations, and output. Every phrase adds value: ingestion, transcript generation, scene graph construction, B-roll searching goal, and return of metadata path. No extraneous words.

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?

The description covers the main steps and purpose, referencing the output (metadata path) which is further defined by an output schema. It is clear relative to sibling tools. Minor gaps include lack of supported video formats or directory considerations, but overall sufficient for understanding core functionality.

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 input schema has one parameter, directory_path, with a description in the schema itself. The tool description adds that the directory contains 'raw video footage' and that ingestion produces transcript and scene graph, but it does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already states. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high schema description 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 uses specific verbs ('Ingests', 'generates', 'constructs') and resources ('directory of video files', 'audio transcripts', 'Visual Scene Graph') to clearly state the tool's function. It also distinguishes from siblings (generate_vfx, preview, render) by naming the distinct outputs for B-Roll searching.

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 implies the tool is used for ingesting video to support B-roll searching, but it does not explicitly state when to use or avoid it versus alternatives like omni_video_generate_vfx or omni_video_preview. No prerequisites or excluded cases are mentioned.

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