search_timeline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key non-obvious behavior: it searches all analyzed windows, not just those with alerts, and supports natural-language queries. This is substantial transparency, though it does not cover performance or error behavior.

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 well-organized with a clear one-sentence summary, a paragraph elaborating scope with useful examples, and a structured Args list. The examples are valuable and justify the length, though the overall text is slightly longer than minimal.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, unique search scope, and all parameters. Since an output schema exists, it need not explain return values. A minor improvement would be referencing list_processed_videos for users unsure of video_id, but this is not a critical omission.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section fully explains every parameter: query ('what to look for, in plain language'), video_id ('which processed video; omit if only one'), and k ('how many windows to return'). This adds complete semantics beyond the schema's types and defaults.

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: 'Search the footage in natural language.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it searches every analyzed window, not just alert-producing ones, and explicitly contrasts with the hazard taxonomy. This makes its unique role 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?

The description provides clear usage context, explaining that the tool answers questions the hazard taxonomy does not cover and giving concrete examples. It also gives parameter-level guidance, such as omitting video_id when only one video is processed. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer alternative tools like list_alerts, so it stops short of a full 5.

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