Diagnose a video prompt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the language scope (English/Chinese) and the specific checks performed. However, it does not disclose what happens on malformed input or what the result looks like, leaving some behavioral detail unspecified.

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?

A single, tight sentence with no filler. The diagnostics are listed immediately after the verb, front-loading the core behavior. Nothing extraneous.

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?

Complexity is low (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the input well. However, it omits the result contract: an agent cannot tell whether the tool returns a pass/fail verdict, a scored report, or a corrected prompt. For a diagnostic tool, some statement of expected output would be valuable.

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%, so the description must carry the semantic weight for the 'prompt' parameter. It compensates well: it clarifies that the prompt is an English or Chinese video-generation prompt and enumerates the properties it should contain (scene, motion, camera, lighting, continuity, reference tokens). This adds real meaning beyond the bare string 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 states a specific verb ('Check') with a clear resource (an English or Chinese video prompt) and enumerates the exact diagnostic dimensions checked: scene readability, visible motion, camera direction, lighting, continuity controls, and preserved reference tokens. The diagnosing role is implicitly distinguishable from siblings build/plan/get.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like build_video_prompt, an agent is not told 'use this to validate before building' or any when-not conditions. The description offers no context for selection.

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