recording_scenes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully characterizes the results as optional, approximate, and secondary evidence, and names the underlying tools (ffmpeg, tesseract), which hints at cost/quality. However, it says nothing about runtime cost of OCR, pagination/limits, or what a result looks like, and there is no output schema to cover that gap.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the conditional usage note and the evidence-quality caveat. Every clause adds decision-relevant information with no 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?

For a four-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, and result-quality but omits the meaning of threshold/max_scenes and any notion of return shape or cost. Adequate but with clear gaps given the structured fields do little of the work.

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 coverage is only 25% and two of four parameters (threshold, max_scenes) have no semantic description anywhere. The description does add real meaning for 'ocr' by saying it is optional keyframe OCR via tesseract, partially compensating, but leaves the tuning parameters 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?

States a specific resource (scene-cut timestamps / fallback anchors for a completed take) and the mechanism (ffmpeg scene cuts, optional tesseract OCR). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the recording_timeline sibling by framing itself as the fallback when no timeline stream exists.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Use when no timeline stream was published for the take') and an explicit exclusion/limitation ('scene cuts are secondary evidence, never the sync source'). The agent knows exactly when to reach for this versus the timeline tool.

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