analyze_video_reference

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses supported formats (.mp4, .webm) and names the analysis outputs, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the tool fetches remote URLs, handles large videos, or is read-only, and no error or limitation behavior is described.

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, dense sentence with no filler. The core purpose and output types are front-loaded, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 clearly lists expected outputs and supports formats, but it does not explain that at least one of video_url or video_path must be supplied, despite both parameters being formally optional. With no output schema and no annotations, this missing invocation constraint leaves the description slightly incomplete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters well. The description adds some conceptual context by mapping outputs to analysis areas, but it does not provide additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 names a specific verb ('Analisa') and resource ('vídeo de referência'), and enumerates concrete extraction outputs: movement choreography, spring physics, bezier curves, and transition timing. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and easily distinguishable from its unrelated siblings.

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 clearly implies the tool is for video reference analysis and lists the supported formats, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Since all sibling tools are clearly unrelated, the usage context is still evident.

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