video_analyze_motion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It identifies the analysis targets but omits key behavioral details such as whether the operation is read-only, what the output looks like, how max_frames affects processing, and what video formats are supported. The description adds some value by naming the analyses, but it does not compensate for the complete absence of 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a tool name, though it could be strengthened by using some of that space to cover the completely undocumented parameters.

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?

This is a video-analysis tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, so the description should explain more about what is returned, how max_frames works, and what formats are accepted. It names the analyses but leaves critical invocation details missing.

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 does not mention either parameter. It does not explain that video_path is the path to the source video or that max_frames limits the number of frames processed, leaving both parameters entirely undocumented.

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 states a specific verb ('Analyzes') and resource ('a video') and enumerates the exact analyses performed: scene cuts, camera zooms, object inflation/shrinking, and motion energy. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as video_sync_motion_to_audio or video_extract_sound_triggers.

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 offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives. The phrase 'for SoundBit audio sync' gives a general context, but an agent is left to infer when this tool should be selected over the many related video tools in the sibling list.

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