Split a video into chapters by cut points or long silences and get a suggested viewing order; use it before selecting sections for transcription or frame review.
0 下载：按切点/长静音把视频切成章节，给出建议观看顺序。 长视频默认先调它，再挑 2-3 个章节用 video_window / video_sheet，不要一上来就转写全片。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| window | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that it performs no download and that segmentation is based on cut points and long silences, and it describes the recommended follow-up workflow. However, it does not state output structure, latency, cost, or any permission/authentication requirements.
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 short sentences with no filler. The core purpose and the workflow recommendation are front-loaded and easy to scan.
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 description covers the tool's purpose and workflow role, which is the most important context. But for a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, it leaves the window parameter and the shape of the returned chapters/order unexplained.
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 does not mention either parameter. The url is obvious from context, but the window parameter and its default of 300 are completely unexplained, so the description fails to compensate for the schema 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?
The description states a concrete verb and resource: split the video into chapters at cut points or long silences and recommend a viewing order. It also explicitly distinguishes this tool's role from sibling tools by directing the agent to call it first for long videos before using video_window or video_sheet.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance (long videos, call this first) and when-not-to-do-something (do not transcribe the entire film immediately). It names the alternative tools to use afterward and how many chapters to pick, leaving little to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.