verify_video

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that ffprobe is used, verifies file existence, and checks for both video and audio streams. It does not mention error handling or confirm non-destructive behavior, but 'inspect' implies read-only. This is sufficient for a simple inspection tool.

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 compact, with a clear first sentence, a technical second sentence, and a directive note. The IMPORTANT note feels slightly out of place for this specific tool and could distract, but overall it is concise and front-loaded.

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 a single parameter, an output schema, and a simple purpose. The description covers the core behaviors and purpose, and given the output schema exists, it need not detail return values. It lacks explicit error scenarios and integration context, but is adequate for a simple verification tool.

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% for the only parameter (video_path), which already describes 'Path to the video file to inspect.' The description adds no additional detail beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 function: 'Inspect a rendered video file and return its technical properties.' It enumerates specific outputs (codec info, streams, duration, resolution, bitrate) and distinguishes itself from sibling scene-building and rendering tools by focusing solely on video inspection.

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 implies the tool should be used for inspecting rendered video files rather than writing custom scripts, but it lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools like get_render_result or get_render_status. The IMPORTANT note is a general directive about not using standalone manim scripts, not specific guidance on when to use this tool.

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