Timing from a reference video

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the bar is low, and the description does add useful context: the analysis produces four signal types across three output forms and an optional crop region. It says nothing about processing cost on long videos, whether the sheet/graph are written to disk, or how comparison results are reported, which matters for a readOnly tool that appears to emit artifacts.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and the optional crop caveat before the compare mode. Some output nouns are listed in a compressed run ('frame table, graph and sheet') but nothing is filler.

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 7 parameters, nested objects and no output schema, the description does partially compensate by describing what the tool returns (frame table, graph, sheet, peaks/holds/cuts/period). However, it omits parameter semantics for most inputs and offers no routing guidance in a crowded sibling set, leaving real gaps for a moderately complex 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 description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters including two nested objects, so the description must carry the burden. It only clarifies two of them ('optional crop', and that compare involves a Spine animation with speed ratio, offset, per-peak frames), and even those are ambiguous because speed ratio/offset/per-peak frames read as outputs rather than the project/animation/skeleton/scale inputs. fps, start, end, video and the sheet flag remain unexplained.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('timing from a reference video') and enumerates concrete outputs: motion peaks, holds, cuts, repeat period as a frame table, graph and sheet, plus a compare mode. It is clearly not a generic timing or compare tool, though it never names which sibling (spine_timing, spine_compare_animations) it supersedes.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative. The clause about 'compare' aligning a Spine animation implies a secondary mode, but an agent must infer from the sibling list whether to pick this over spine_timing, spine_compare_animations, or spine_review_video.

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