Detects progressive circle, contour, and callout line drawings in video, returning exact start/finish timestamps and draw curves for each detected stroke.
Detects progressive indicator drawings (circle_draw, contour_outline_draw, callout_line_draw) with exact start_s, finish_s, and draw_curve.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_frames | No | ||
| video_path | Yes | ||
| allowed_shapes | No | ||
| min_duration_s | No | ||
| proof_image_path | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but discloses little behavior beyond the output field names. It does not say whether the tool is read-only, whether it writes proof images, or what performance or permission characteristics apply.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of fluff, but it is too terse for a tool with five parameters and no annotations. It is efficient in wording but appropriately sized? No—it omits necessary details, making it under-specified rather than truly concise.
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?
For a detection tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It hints at return values (start_s, finish_s, draw_curve) but doesn't explain what they are, how they're formatted, or what the tool returns overall.
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%, so the description must explain all five parameters. It mentions the shape enum values and some output fields but never explains video_path, max_frames, allowed_shapes, min_duration_s, or proof_image_path, leaving the parameters essentially 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 clearly states a specific verb ('detects') and resource ('progressive indicator drawings') with three concrete shape types. It distinguishes from sibling video_detect_bar_fills by naming different shapes, though it does not explicitly reference siblings or contrast them.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like video_detect_bar_fills or video_analyze_motion. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for choosing this detection method are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.