Codec Distribution

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

The description lacks behavioral context such as whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or requires authentication. It does not disclose any side effects or limitations. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden but fails to add transparency.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified. It omits essential details such as parameter roles or output structure, making it too brief for a tool with 11 parameters.

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 the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the parameters do, how results are returned, or how this tool relates to similar distribution tools.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter explanations in the description, the agent receives no guidance on the meaning or usage of the 11 parameters. The description adds no value beyond the raw parameter names.

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 'Count library items by video codec' clearly states the verb (count) and resource (library items by video codec). It distinguishes from siblings like audio_distribution or hdr_distribution, which target different codec types. However, it could be more explicit about the output format.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like codec_by_indexer or storage_by_codec. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.

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