split_video

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and output; it does not clarify whether the original file is preserved, how output files are named, whether re-encoding occurs, or what file formats are produced. For a transformation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 filler, front-loading the core action and outcome. It is appropriately terse and every word contributes meaning.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and an ambiguous required parameter, this description is not sufficient for correct invocation. It omits split_time semantics, output behavior, and edge-case constraints, so an agent is left guessing at critical 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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain either parameter. While 'input_video' is inferable from its name, 'split_time' is entirely unspecified: its unit (seconds, milliseconds, percentage) and valid range are unknown, so an agent cannot correctly supply the value without external knowledge.

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 ('split') and resource ('a video') and adds the clear outcome 'into two separate files.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like trim_video (which produces a single trimmed segment) and merge_videos (which combines videos). The operation is 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?

No guidance is provided about when to choose split_video over alternatives such as trim_video or crossfade_videos. There is no mention of scenarios, constraints, or conditions that would point an agent to this tool, leaving the decision to inference.

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