extract_video_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what the tool does but doesn't cover important aspects like performance characteristics (e.g., processing time, accuracy), error handling, or output format. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by clearly communicating the core functionality.

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 complexity of video processing and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., text format, timestamps, confidence scores) or address potential limitations (e.g., supported video formats, language support), leaving the AI agent with incomplete context for proper tool invocation.

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 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'video_url' clearly documented. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately handles parameter 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('extract text' and 'transcribe speech') and resource ('from a video'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_video' or 'summarize_video', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'analyze_video', 'summarize_video', and 'video_qa' available, there's no indication of when this specific text extraction tool is preferred, leaving usage context unclear.

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