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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that only 'scheduled' posts can be cancelled and others return error. It implies a destructive operation, but could be more explicit about side effects.

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?

Three concise sentences, each adding essential information. No wasted words. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description provides all necessary context: action, constraints, and parameter source.

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 0% (no descriptions in the input schema). The description adds meaning by explaining post_id's source and constraint on status, compensating well.

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 action ('Cancel a scheduled post') and the resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'schedule_post' and 'list_scheduled_posts'.

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?

Explicitly states when it works (status 'scheduled') and when it doesn't (processing/posted), and tells how to get the required post_id from list_scheduled_posts.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses job duration (3-8 minutes), that the user will receive an email, and that the agent can check status. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by actionable guidance and behavioral notes. No redundant information.

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 the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and is asynchronous, the description covers purpose, defaults, timing, notification, and a follow-up action (status check). Slightly incomplete on return value, but acceptable.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains defaults for aspect_ratio ('9:16') and caption_style ('minimalist'), but does not describe video_url or caption_color. Thus partial value added.

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: 'Add captions to a short video (up to 5 minutes).' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like clip_video and get_clip_status.

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 provides guidance on when to ask the user for parameters (aspect_ratio, caption_style) and defaults if unspecified. It also mentions the async nature and suggests checking status via get_clip_status. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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

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

Discloses asynchronous nature (job takes 10–30 minutes), notification method (email), and agent check via get_clip_status. No annotations exist, so description carries burden and does well.

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?

Three sentences, each containing essential information: purpose, parameter handling with defaults, job duration and follow-up. No fluff.

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?

Missing immediate return value (likely a job ID), error conditions (e.g., invalid video URL or duration). With no output schema, description should cover what the tool returns. Also no mention of permissions.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, description adds value by explaining that missing parameters should be asked from user and providing default values. However, it does not explain enum options or video_url format constraints.

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 'Start a video-clipping job,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_clip_status (status) and download_clip (download).

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?

Provides clear guidance on when to use: when user wants to clip a video. Instructs agent to ask for missing parameters and provides defaults. Mentions alternative tool get_clip_status for status checks, but no explicit exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It specifies the download location and return values, but doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., whether the server copy is deleted), authentication needs, or error handling. For a simple download, this is adequate but lacks depth.

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 three concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and returns, then adds usage conditions. Every sentence 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately specifies the return value (file path and size). It covers the required parameters sufficiently. However, it could mention error scenarios or file format details, but is reasonably complete for a simple download 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description adds some value by clarifying that clip_index is 1-based. However, it doesn't explain job_id beyond being a string, and both parameters lack any format or example details. The description partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 action ('Download a rendered clip'), the target location ('local Downloads folder'), and the return value ('file path and size'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like clip_video (which creates clips) and get_clip_status (which checks status).

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?

Explicitly states when to use: after get_clip_status reports completion, with the correct clip_index. Also gives a clear prohibition: 'Don't call this for jobs that are still processing.' This provides excellent guidance.

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

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

Annotations already show readOnlyHint=true, so no risk of misunderstanding. Description adds context about previous job initiation, which is helpful.

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?

Two sentences, no extraneous info. Front-loaded with the action and usage context.

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 and no description of return value or possible statuses. Could mention polling behavior or expected response format for completeness.

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?

Only one parameter job_id; description implies its meaning but doesn't explicitly say it's the ID from clip_video. Schema coverage 0% would benefit from explicit param description.

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 checks clip job status and when to call it. It differentiates from siblings like clip_video and download_clip.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Call this when the user asks about a job they've already started.' No ambiguity about when to use.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds specific fields returned (credits, plan, monthly usage), giving concrete behavioral details beyond safety. Could mention if data is real-time.

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?

Single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the verb 'Return'. No unnecessary information.

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 the low complexity (no params, no output schema), the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns. Could mention that data is user-specific, but context signals and annotations already imply that.

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?

There are no parameters and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, but the baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 returns credits, plan, and usage for the current user. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., scheduling, clipping) which are unrelated.

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 the tool is for checking credits, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or alternative suggestions. No guidance on prerequisites or frequency.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'List' verb is consistent. The description adds behavioral context about filter defaults and pagination (limit, offset, max), which is valuable beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences front-loading purpose and filters, followed by usage context. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, parameters, and usage context. Slight gap: no mention of response ordering or sorting, but limit/offset imply pagination.

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 0%, so description carries the burden. It explains status enum values, gives default and max for limit, and mentions offset. However, it does not list platform enum values explicitly, though the schema provides them.

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?

Description clearly states verb (List) and resource (scheduled social posts). It specifies optional filters and when to use the tool, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like schedule_post and cancel_scheduled_post.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use ('when the user asks about their calendar, queue, or upcoming posts'), providing context for selecting this tool over alternatives. Lacks explicit exclusion criteria, but the positive guidance is strong.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the tool 'schedules' posts (a write operation) and gives some usage prompts, but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, error handling, or idempotency. Adequate but could be more transparent.

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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for platform-specific rules), but no extraneous information.

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 the tool's complexity (multi-platform, nested array with 8+ properties, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It covers only core fields and carousel constraints, missing details on title, asset_id, media_url, platform_settings, return values, and error states.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by explaining the need for platform, post_type, caption, scheduled_at and carousel item constraints (2-10). However, it omits explanations for title, asset_id, media_url, and platform_settings, leaving gaps.

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 schedules clips or media on social platforms, with a specific verb (schedule) and resource (post). It distinguishes from siblings like list_scheduled_posts and cancel_scheduled_post.

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 advises asking the user for missing fields (platform, post_type, caption, scheduled_at) and gives platform-specific requirements, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., clip_video) nor provide exclusions.

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