Video storyboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns inline images, samples frames evenly, and costs no quota for already-seen videos. This provides good transparency for a read-only preview 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 very concise at two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and output, while the second adds a key behavioral note (cost). No unnecessary words.

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?

Given no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it returns, how it samples, and a cost benefit. It is adequate for an agent to decide whether to use this tool, though it could specifiy image format or error handling.

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?

The input schema covers 67% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds context about 'evenly-sampled preview frames' tying to the frames parameter, but does not explain the height parameter or provide additional details beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'poster plus evenly-sampled preview frames from inside a video'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_videos or download_media by emphasizing the validation of motion/content/framing without downloading.

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 when to use the tool: to validate a clip without downloading, and notes cost benefits. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for comparison.

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