concat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden)Skip. It discloses two important traits: normalization of geometry/frame rate/audio and re-encoding. It does not mention potential side effects like output overwriting or whether source files are modified, but the core behavior is clearly stated.

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 with no extraneous words. It front-loads the primary action and packs key behavioral details into the remainder, making every word earn its place.

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 essential purpose and key behavioral traits, and the schema provides constraints and defaults for all parameters. However, it mentions 'audio' normalization without any corresponding parameter or explanation, and it omits details about output handling or encoding behavior. This leaves room for agent uncertainty.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'normalized geometry, frame rate' maps directly to the frame object's width, height, ratio, and fps fields, giving them context. It does not explain inputs or output explicitly, but those are self-evident from the tool name and schema field 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 opens with the specific verb 'Concatenate' and the resource 'complete clips', which clearly identifies the operation. It further distinguishes itself from siblings like 'trim' by emphasizing that it works on complete clips, and adds relevant qualifiers about normalization and re-encoding.

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 qualifier 'complete clips' implies this tool is for joining full-length clips rather than partial sections, which is a usage hint relative to 'trim'. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving the agent to infer specific routing decisions.

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