video_inter_frame

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states what it reports but does not indicate whether the tool is read-only, requires special permissions, or has any side effects. The lack of explicit safety or non-destructive declaration is a gap.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and outputs. It is front-loaded with the main action and followed by details. Slightly more structure could improve readability, but it is 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?

Given the simple tool (one param, no output schema), the description covers the main outputs (distribution, size stats, anomalies) but does not specify the return format or how anomalies are flagged. More detail on what the tool returns would improve completeness.

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 a single parameter `file_path` described as 'Path to AVI video file'. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool analyzes frame types from the AVI idx1 index, reports keyframe/delta distribution and size statistics, and flags anomalies for steganography. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like video_frame_compare and video_structure by focusing specifically on the idx1 index.

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 implies usage for steganographic analysis of AVI files but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like video_frame_compare or video_structure. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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