Inspect a video frame by frame

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds what kind of output to expect (event list, per-frame curves, overview sheet) and what the verify mode does, but omits runtime cost, limits, and how the analysis scales with range/fps — relevant for a heavy frame-by-frame pass.

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 single semicolon-chained sentence is front-loaded with purpose but then becomes an undifferentiated feature dump. Every element is arguably relevant, but the run-on packing of encoding, motion, audio, and output artifacts makes it harder to parse than a short structured list.

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?

With no output schema, the description does well to sketch return artifacts (event list, curves, overview sheet). However, for a 7-parameter tool with nested crop/verify objects and no schema descriptions, the missing parameter semantics and lack of guidance on range/fps trade-offs leave it partially incomplete.

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 nested crop and verify objects. The description only indirectly illuminates 'sheet' ('an overview sheet') and 'verify' ('compares a segment with a Spine animation'); start/end, fps, and crop semantics are entirely undocumented, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Frame-by-frame video check') and enumerates concrete analyses (encoding, VFR, segments, flashes, dropped frames, audio onsets), which clearly distinguishes a diagnostic inspection from a frame extractor. The purpose is clear despite the dense enumeration, and it explicitly names the sibling spine_video_frames for exact frames.

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?

It gives one explicit routing rule ('Exact frames: spine_video_frames') and notes that 'verify' compares a segment with a Spine animation, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like spine_review_video, spine_motion_visual, or spine_video_frames beyond that single line, and no stated exclusions.

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