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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like whether it modifies the original video file, what permissions are needed, error handling, or performance characteristics. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 extremely concise with just one sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it front-loaded and efficient. Every word earns its place in conveying the core functionality.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., path to extracted audio file, success/failure indicators) or important behavioral details. For a tool that performs file operations with multiple parameters, more context is needed for effective use.

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 description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all parameters. The baseline score of 3 reflects that the schema adequately documents parameters, so the description doesn't need to compensate but also doesn't provide additional value.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('extract') and resource ('audio from a video file'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-video-info' or 'resize-video', which might also involve video processing but serve different functions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools or any context-specific usage scenarios, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone. There's no explicit when/when-not or alternative recommendations.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves version information, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose potential side effects, error conditions, permissions required, or output format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words or structural fluff. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the essential information, making it highly concise 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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate for a basic read operation but incomplete for practical use. It lacks details on output format (e.g., string, object), error handling, or system dependencies, which are important for an agent to invoke it correctly in varied contexts.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately does not mention parameters, aligning with the schema. Since there are no parameters to explain, this meets the baseline for tools without inputs, though it doesn't add extra semantic context.

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 specific action ('Get') and resource ('version of FFmpeg installed on the system'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'extract-audio' or 'resize-video' which perform different operations. It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-video-info' (which might include version information) or other system-check tools. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, offering only a basic statement of purpose without usage instructions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states what the tool does without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation, potential errors (e.g., invalid paths), performance aspects, or output format, which are critical for a tool with no output schema.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., metadata, duration, resolution) or behavioral traits, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to use the tool effectively.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'videoPath' documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high coverage without extra value.

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 action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a video file'), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-ffmpeg-version' or 'resize-video' beyond the general video focus, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid video file path, or comparisons to siblings like 'extract-audio' for audio-related tasks, leaving usage unclear.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('resize a video') but doesn't describe what happens (e.g., creates new files, overwrites existing ones, requires specific permissions, or has performance/rate limits). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('resize a video') and adds clarifying detail ('to one or more standard resolutions'). Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying scope 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 tool's moderate complexity (a mutation operation with 3 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or output format. For a video processing tool, more context on file formats, processing time, or result location would be beneficial.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'standard resolutions', which aligns with the enum in the schema but doesn't provide additional context like aspect ratio preservation or quality settings. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'resize' and resource 'video', specifying it converts to 'standard resolutions'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'extract-audio' or 'get-video-info' by focusing on resolution transformation rather than extraction or metadata retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'get-ffmpeg-version' is clearly different).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., video file format compatibility), when not to use it (e.g., for non-standard resolutions), or how it relates to sibling tools like 'extract-audio' for audio-only processing. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description.

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