omni_video_preview

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses return value (absolute path to PNG) but omits side effects, error conditions, performance implications, or what happens with invalid inputs. Minimal behavioral disclosure beyond output.

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?

Three concise sentences, each adding unique value: generation action, use case, return information. No wasted words, front-loaded with core purpose.

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 an output schema present (implied) and comprehensive parameter descriptions, the tool is mostly complete. Could mention error handling or performance constraints for large videos. Still strong given context.

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 already provides descriptions for all parameters (file_path, start_time, end_time) achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond noting the return type. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'generates' and resource 'filmstrip PNG of the specified video segment'. Intent is further clarified with use case for verifying cut boundaries or B-roll placement. Distinguishes from sibling tools (generate_vfx, ingest, render) by focusing on preview.

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?

Description provides explicit use cases: 'visually verifying cut boundaries or B-roll placement'. Does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but context with sibling tools makes the purpose clear. Slightly improved by adding 'when not to use'.

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