inspect_clip

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden and it does say the tool creates and returns an artifact. It omits side effects/persistence, auth requirements, and output format, but it at least discloses the core behavior and precondition.

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 sentence with no filler; the main action, object, and condition are front-loaded. Every phrase 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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and zero parameter documentation, the description leaves important details unspecified: what the contact sheet looks like, how it is returned, and how the time-range parameters affect it. The sibling tool names do not fill this gap.

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 explicit meaning for samples, startSeconds, or endSeconds. 'Timestamped contact sheet' hints at time-range sampling, but the agent must infer the parameter mappings from property names rather than from 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 defines the action ('create and return') and the specific resource ('a timestamped contact sheet'), and scopes it to a completed recording. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_frames, so it falls short of full distinctiveness.

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?

'For a completed recording' provides a clear condition: this tool is for finished sessions, not active ones. It does not name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the precondition is enough for basic routing.

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