video_analysis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Alias for analyze_video' discloses nothing about side effects, return values, or limitations; it is not informative at all.

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 short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. The single sentence 'Alias for analyze_video' does not earn its place because it provides no useful information; it is a form of under-specification.

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?

The tool has 2 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description should compensate. It does not: the alias statement adds nothing, leaving the tool functionally opaque for the agent.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters 'prompt' and 'video_source'. The agent receives no hints about expected formats, types, or examples beyond the raw property names.

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 is merely 'Alias for analyze_video,' which does not state what the tool does (e.g., video analysis). It only points to another tool, so the agent must infer purpose from the sibling tool or return to the name, providing no standalone clarity.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus the sibling 'analyze_video' or alternatives. The description gives no context, conditions, or exclusions, so the agent gets no help deciding between tools.

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