video_frame_compare

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses computing three metrics and comparing two frames. However, it says 'adjacent' but parameters allow arbitrary indices, which is a minor inconsistency. Does not mention performance or error conditions.

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, no wasted words. First sentence states purpose, second lists metrics. 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 no output schema, description does not explain return format. It adequately covers what the tool does and metrics computed. Missing details on error handling or edge cases, but sufficient for a simple comparison tool.

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%, but description adds context: explains frame indices, default values, and file_path type (AVI). The term 'adjacent' adds meaning but conflicts with flexible indices. Adds value beyond 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?

Description clearly states verb 'compare' and resource 'adjacent video frames', and specifies purpose of detecting pixel-level anomalies with specific metrics (byte diff, MSE, PSNR). It distinguishes from sibling tools like img_compare and video_inter_frame.

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?

Description implies usage for steganography detection in video frames but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like video_inter_frame or img_compare. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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