summarize_video

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 the tool generates summaries with style options but doesn't describe what the output looks like (e.g., text format, length limits), whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or how it handles errors. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a bulleted list of style options that efficiently explains variations. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or vague language, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on output format, error handling, authentication needs, and how it differs from sibling tools. For a summarization tool with no structured behavioral data, the description should provide more context to guide effective use.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('video_url' and 'style') with descriptions and default values. The description adds minimal value by listing style options ('brief', 'standard', 'detailed'), which are already in the schema's description for 'style'. It doesn't provide additional context like URL format requirements or style-specific details beyond the schema.

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: 'Generate a summary of a video' with a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('video'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'analyze_video' or 'extract_video_text' by focusing on summarization rather than analysis or text extraction. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'video_qa' might also involve summarization).

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. It doesn't mention when to choose 'summarize_video' over 'analyze_video' or 'video_qa', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The style options imply usage contexts but don't offer explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use advice.

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