Inspect an item's scenes

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

The annotations already establish read-only and open-world behavior, and the description adds meaningful context: paged scene results with keyframes, shotlist excerpt and license, or a paged clip list with thumbnails. It also discloses the follow-up pattern needed when an item contains many clips. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or failure behavior, but it adds solid operational detail beyond the annotations.

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 two tight sentences with no wasted language, and it front-loads the overall purpose before branching into the two item shapes. The conditional follow-up instruction is embedded without clutter.

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 five-parameter read-only inspection tool with an output schema and existing annotations, the description covers the main item shapes and follow-up behavior well. The remaining gap is paging parameter semantics, but the presence of an output schema and schema-defined defaults/maximums makes the definition largely complete.

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 low at 40%, so the description needs to compensate. It explains file usage and implies paging for both modes, but cursor, page_size, and window semantics are left mostly to the schema, with cursor and page_size lacking textual descriptions in both places.

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 specific action and resource: showing what is inside an archive.org item. It clearly distinguishes the two inspection modes (single video scenes vs. many separate clips), but it does not differentiate itself from siblings such as search_footage or extract_clip.

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 useful conditional guidance for the two internal modes, including calling again with file=<name> when an item has many separate clips. However, it does not say when to use inspect_item instead of the sibling tools, so alternative routing remains implied rather than explicit.

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