Get SeeVido resources

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds a valuable non-annotation detail: 'without fetching external content', indicating a local static lookup. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Single sentence, no unnecessary words, front-loads the core action and scope. Efficient and well-structured.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the main behavior. It doesn't specify the return format, but given the simplicity and that safety/read-only annotations are present, it's adequate.

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 partially compensates by listing the resource categories ('prompting, workflow, model-orientation, or safety') which map directly to the topic enum values. It adds context about what topics filter, though it doesn't explicitly explain the parameter's effect.

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?

States a specific action ('Return') and resource type ('canonical SeeVido prompting, workflow, model-orientation, or safety resources') with a distinguishing constraint ('without fetching external content'). Clearly differentiates from siblings like build_video_prompt which focus on creation rather than retrieval.

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?

Implies usage for obtaining standard SeeVido resources but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like build_video_prompt or plan_reference_sequence. No exclusions or comparative guidance are provided.

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