loop_video

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action and does not mention output format, whether audio is included, loop semantics, or any side effects. This is minimal behavioral 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 efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it is so terse that some necessary information is omitted, though conciseness itself is handled well.

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?

Despite the tool's apparent simplicity, the description is incomplete for selecting and invoking it correctly. It lacks information about loop counting, input video constraints, audio behavior, and expected output. With no annotations or output schema, the agent is left with too much ambiguity.

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%, and the description adds no detail about the 'input_video' or 'loops' parameters. The phrase 'multiple times' loosely maps to 'loops,' but it does not explain the default semantics, valid values, or input requirements. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Repeat a video multiple times.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like reverse_video or freeze_frame, which perform different operations. However, it does not clarify whether 'loops' includes the original playback, leaving minor ambiguity.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or what context requires looping. It is implied by the name and description, but there is no explicit when-to-use or exclusionary guidance.

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