Plan a video shot sequence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces these with 'Read-only and deterministic.' The deterministic guarantee adds slight value beyond the idempotentHint annotation by promising identical output for identical input, though no further behavioral context is added.

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 one compact sentence plus a short safety phrase, with the core purpose front-loaded. There is no filler or redundant structural overhead.

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 tool with no output schema, the description hints at the output shape (timed shots with purpose, camera direction, and continuity anchors) but does not state the response format or enumerate how each input parameter affects the result. The safety profile is covered by annotations, so the remaining gaps are mostly around invocation details.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description does some compensating work: '1 to 6' conveys shotCount's range, 'camera direction' maps to cameraStyle, 'continuity anchors' maps to continuityAnchor, and 'timed' implies totalDurationSeconds. However, it never explicitly ties these phrases to parameter names or explains idea's role, duration distribution, or formatting.

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 precise action ('Break one video idea into 1 to 6 timed shots') and names the output fields (purpose, camera direction, continuity anchors). This clearly identifies the tool as a shot-planning operation and separates it from siblings like build_video_prompt or get_resources.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description never references alternatives or prerequisites, so an agent must infer the appropriate invocation context solely from the tool's name and purpose.

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