analyze_video

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden, but it only says 'Analyze a video'. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, what kind of analysis is performed (e.g., object detection, audio transcription), whether any resources are consumed, or what the output format is.

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 overly terse. 'Analyze a video' essentially restates the tool name, and the format list is the only added information. It is under-specified to the point of being nearly tautological, similar to the 'Process' calibration example.

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, output schema, and parameter details, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain how the tool operates, what the prompt is for, or how it differs from the sibling 'video_analysis', leaving the agent to guess.

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 has zero coverage and the description does not compensate. It does not explain the purpose of 'video_source' or 'prompt', nor does it clarify the expected input format for the video source or how the prompt influences the analysis.

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 states the tool analyzes video files and lists supported formats (mp4/mov/m4v), making the primary action clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'video_analysis', which appears equally suited for the task.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'video_analysis' or 'analyze_image'. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context that would help an agent choose this tool.

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