filmora_verify_output

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the check is a local filesystem stat on an already-exported file and explicitly does not verify codec or content integrity, which prevents an agent from over-trusting a pass result. It omits what happens on failure (returned flag vs. error) or whether the file must exist.

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?

A single compact sentence with the positive capability front-loaded and the limitation trailing as a qualifier. Nothing is padded or repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should indicate what a verification result looks like (boolean, pass/fail, returned size), and it does not. It also leaves the minimum_bytes behavior and the missing-file case unspecified for a two-parameter tool.

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% across both parameters, so the description carries the burden. It mentions 'size' and 'timestamps', which loosely maps to the minimum_bytes threshold and the file path, but it never explains that minimum_bytes is a size floor (default 1) or what unit it uses, leaving the threshold semantics undocumented in both places.

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?

Names a specific verb (check) and resource (a specific exported local file) and pins the scope to size/timestamps. It also draws an explicit boundary against codec/content validation, which separates it from the export and inspection siblings. An agent can tell immediately what this tool does and does not answer.

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 scope exclusion ('does not assert codec/content validity') implicitly tells the agent when this tool is insufficient, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of using it after filmora_open_export completes, and no sibling alternative named for content-level validation. Usage must be inferred from the export workflow.

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