Get China AI video resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the behavioral detail that it does not fetch external content, which clarifies that the data is canonical and local. This adds value beyond the annotations, though it doesn't describe the output format.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and add a key behavioral note. There is no fluff or redundant information.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It states what it returns and that it does not fetch external content, but it does not specify the format of the resources (e.g., URLs, text). Given the low complexity, this is acceptable but not exhaustive.

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 schema provides a single 'topic' parameter with an enum, so the valid values are already defined. The description lists similar terms (prompting, workflow, etc.) but does not elaborate on the meaning or default behavior. With 0% schema description coverage, the description could compensate but only minimally does.

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 returns canonical resources from ChinaVideoAI.com covering prompting, workflows, models, and safety. The verb 'return' and the specific resource categories distinguish it from sibling tools like diagnose_video_prompt or build_video_prompt, which focus on prompt creation and diagnosis.

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 gives clear context: it returns resources, implying use when you need canonical resources. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. The sibling names make the distinction obvious, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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