akai_video_demux

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

No annotations are present, and the description gives no behavioral information such as side effects, idempotency, or required permissions. The tool could be destructive or read-only; the agent has no way to infer this.

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 short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It consists of only the name and category, which adds no value beyond the tool name itself. A concise description should be front-loaded with essential information; this lacks substance.

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's likely complexity (video demuxing) and the absence of an output schema or annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not mention output format, supported codecs, or any operational context, leaving the agent severely underinformed.

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% coverage with descriptions for 'args' and 'stdin', but those descriptions are generic ('CLI arguments', 'Optional stdin data') and are not enriched by the tool description. Per the scoring rules, high schema coverage sets a baseline of 3 even without additional param info in the description.

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 merely repeats the tool name 'akai-video-demux' and adds a generic category 'media'. It fails to specify any verb or resource, offering no insight into what the tool actually does (e.g., demultiplexing video streams). This is a tautology.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus any of the many sibling tools (listed as 100+). There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or alternative tools, leaving the agent with no decision criteria.

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