analyze_video

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It discloses the use of a 'local vision model' and provides the return JSON shape (text, mode, frames, duration). However, it does not explain behavior of different modes, potential limitations, or prerequisites. This is adequate but not rich.

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 compact and front-loaded: two sentences. The first states the action and scope; the second gives the return format. No filler. The JSON example is dense but informative, and every element earns 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?

Given 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a return JSON structure, which is helpful. It lists capabilities and mentions modes. However, it does not explain the meaning of each mode or how frames are generated, leaving some gaps for a tool with this complexity.

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 high (86%), with descriptions for most parameters (e.g., 'Video path / URL', 'Sampling frame rate'). The description adds some context by mentioning 'time-window deep reading' and 'contact sheets' which map to modes, but it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 purpose: 'Analyze a video with a local vision model' and enumerates specific capabilities ('scenes, actions, time-window deep reading, contact sheets, etc.'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like describe_image (image) and transcribe (audio), making it obvious this is for video analysis.

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 implies usage for video analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like describe_image or transcribe. There are no exclusions or direct comparisons to siblings. The context is clear for video tasks, but no explicit guidance is given.

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