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 agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds the scope of the check (specific quality dimensions) but does not disclose output format or what happens when issues are found. Given the annotations cover the safety profile, the description adds moderate context but stops short of full behavioral transparency.

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 a single, tight sentence. It opens with the action verb 'Check' and immediately lists the subjects and aspects, leaving no room for fluff. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the input well but says nothing about the output or what constitutes a 'diagnosis'. With no output schema, an agent might wonder whether the tool returns a report, a pass/fail, or a list of issues. This is a notable gap, though the tool's simplicity mitigates it. A sentence on the return value would round it out.

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 compensate. It does so by clarifying that the 'prompt' parameter is expected to be a video prompt and that it can be in English or Chinese. It also enumerates what the tool evaluates in that prompt. This provides meaning beyond the schema's bare string type and length constraints, helping the agent supply an appropriate value.

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 starts with a specific verb 'Check' and names the resource 'English or Chinese prompts', then lists the exact dimensions checked (scene, motion, camera, lighting, continuity, reference tokens). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like build_video_prompt (which constructs prompts) and plan_reference_sequence (which plans a sequence). An agent could easily infer this is a diagnostic tool.

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 this tool is used to evaluate the quality of a video prompt, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus the alternatives. It offers no conditions like 'use after building a prompt' or 'use to validate before submitting'. Usage guidance is implied by the verb 'Check' but not made explicit.

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