analyze

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

With no annotations to lean on, the description carries the full burden and does well, disclosing that it writes rostrum.json into project_dir, that it is long-running, and that it returns a job id — critical async/side-effect context. It omits re-run behavior (does it overwrite rostrum.json?), failure handling, and permission 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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the two facts an agent most needs (output file location, job id). Every sentence earns its place, though the joining rule could be tightened.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, how inputs are grouped, where output lands, and that the call is asynchronous. The only real hole is the undocumented `engine` parameter and the format of rostrum.json.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `paths` well (video files or folders, with talk-part1/talk-part2 joining rules) and implies project_dir is the output location, but the `engine` parameter is left completely undefined, leaving a real 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 gives a specific verb-and-resource pair: 'Transcribe recordings and find proposed cuts.' That is clearly distinguishable from functional siblings such as plan, render, verify, and list_cuts. It falls short of a 5 only because it never names an alternative tool to route the agent away from.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: transcribe-then-cut suggests this is the entry point of the pipeline and that plan/render come later, but the description never says when to choose it or what must exist first. No exclusions or alternative tools are named.

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