cueprecise_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the return type (evidence span, frame, timestamp) and the no-evidence response. However, it omits important details like whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the video_id is invalid, how results are ordered, pagination limits, or error behavior. For a query tool, this is minimal but not entirely absent.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Queries video content') and then detailing the output and edge case. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition. It is optimally sized for the information it conveys.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the return type and no-evidence case but omits crucial context: what constitutes a valid query, how to interpret 'evidence span', whether results are paginated, error handling, and any dependencies on other tools (e.g., video registration). An agent would need to guess many operational details.

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?

Schema coverage is only 33% (only 'limit' has a description, and it is trivial: 'default 8'). The description does not explain video_id or query beyond their obvious names, nor does it clarify the format of the query, the expected type of evidence spans, or how 'limit' affects results. The description adds no value over the schema, and with such low coverage, it fails to compensate.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Queries video content' (영상 내용을 질의한다) and specifies the output: evidence span and frame with timestamp. It also notes the no-evidence behavior. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cueprecise_excerpt (which likely extracts) and cueprecise_summary (which summarizes), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many siblings. It does not mention alternative tools, prerequisites (e.g., video registration), or scenarios where it should not be used. The only behavioral hint is the no-evidence response, which is about outcome, not selection.

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