video_structure

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the read-only visualization behavior and the types of data shown (chunks, FourCC, offsets, sizes). It does not mention performance or file size limits, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 brief sentences convey all necessary information without redundancy. Every word adds value, and the description is front-loaded with the key action and output.

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 input (one parameter) and no output schema, the description fully explains the tool's purpose, input, output format (tree with chunks, FourCC, offsets, sizes), and use case (forensic analysis).

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. The description adds context by specifying AVI/RIFF file type, which enhances understanding beyond the schema's 'Path to AVI video file'.

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 visualizes AVI/RIFF chunk structures as a tree, detailing chunks, FourCC codes, offsets, and sizes. This specific verb-resource pair distinguishes it from sibling video tools like video_metadata or video_detect.

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 forensic analysis of container structure, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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