video_detect

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

With no annotations, the description partially covers behavior: it mentions running LSB analysis on 'first few frames' and checking for appended data. However, it does not disclose whether the tool modifies the file, or what the output format is. It is moderately transparent but could be more explicit.

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?

Two sentences with no extraneous words. First sentence states purpose, second details methods. Efficient and well-structured.

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 multi-method approach and lack of output schema, the description should explain what results are returned (e.g., detection status, confidence). It only says 'auto-detect' without specifying output format. Also, no mention of prerequisites or limitations. Leaves gaps for an AI agent.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'file_path', described as 'Path to AVI video file'. The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond confirming it's an AVI video. Baseline score of 3 applies since schema already documents it.

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?

Description explicitly states it auto-detects steganography in AVI video, listing specific techniques (LSB analysis, appended data, frame size variance). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like video_eof_data or video_frame_lsb, which focus on individual aspects.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that other video tools like video_frame_lsb or video_eof_data might be more appropriate for targeted analysis. The agent must infer usage from the description alone.

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