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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool does not call a model, which is a meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations, though it does not discuss output format or auth/rate limits.

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, front-loaded sentence that lists the components without waste. Every phrase contributes to describing the tool's inputs and scope.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description gives a workable top-level summary but leaves gaps in parameter semantics and usage relative to siblings. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 must supply parameter meaning. It names most conceptual inputs (subject, action, scene, camera, lighting, audio, reference roles, exclusions) and implies the mode values, but it omits visualStyle, framing details, constraints, and optionality, so it only partially compensates.

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 ('Assemble') and resource ('copy-ready text-to-video or image-to-video prompt'), and lists the inputs, so the tool's function is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools by name, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'without calling a model' implies the tool is for prompt construction rather than generation, but alternatives and conditions are absent.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description usefully adds that no generation is submitted. It does not, however, say what the diagnosis actually returns or how failures are surfaced, which matters since there is no output schema.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and puts the scoping clause at the end; no waste. Minor clumsiness ('WAN-30.video', a long enumerated list) keeps it from a 5.

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 seven-parameter, five-required diagnostic with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description should convey what diagnostic output the agent receives and what counts as a failing check. It conveys the scope but not the result shape, leaving a real gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names five of the seven parameters (duration, resolution, reference-count, end-frame, audio) as things it validates, but omits 'mode' entirely and gives no enum values, ranges, or formats, so the enum in mode and the numeric limits stay invisible.

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 verb (check/diagnose) and its objects: prompt clarity plus the currently displayed video settings against their boundaries. 'without submitting generation' pins down what kind of tool it is, but it never contrasts itself with build_wan3_video_prompt or plan_wan3_shot_sequence, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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?

'without submitting generation' implies a pre-flight/dry-run check, which is usable context, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and does not name build_wan3_video_prompt as the alternative for actually authoring a prompt.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, which fully covers the safety profile. The description adds that the resources are 'canonical' and served without an external fetch, mildly reinforcing openWorldHint=false, but discloses nothing about return shape, size, or freshness.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the artifact being returned is stated before the constraint. The wording is slightly awkward ('WAN-30.video creation, guide, pricing, and policy resources') but every word earns its place.

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 read-only lookup tool with no output schema, the description should explain what a 'resource' looks like (text, URLs, identifiers) and whether results are paginated or bundled. It establishes scope but leaves the return format entirely opaque, which matters more here because there is no output schema to fall back on.

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%, but the single parameter is a self-documenting enum. The description enumerates the same values (creation, guide, pricing, policy) the schema already lists, so it adds little; the 'all' default and what each topic actually contains go unmentioned.

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 verb ('Return') and a precise resource (canonical WAN-30.video creation/guide/pricing/policy material), which is enough to distinguish it from the generation/diagnosis siblings. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as build_wan3_video_prompt or diagnose_wan3_video_prompt. The clause 'without fetching external content' hints at a reason to prefer this over an external lookup, but it is a property of the tool, not usage guidance.

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

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations: it validates shot durations against the requested clip length and emits a continuity checklist, i.e., it discloses that the tool reports discrepancies rather than failing silently.

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 dense sentence with no filler, and the core transformation is front-loaded before the reporting caveat. It is efficient, though the comma-separated clauses could be slightly cleaner.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return shape, and it does so partially (timeline plus continuity checklist plus mismatch warnings). However, with three parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotation-level detail on the nested shot object, an agent still lacks enough detail to construct valid shot entries confidently.

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 documentation load. It partially does: 'one to six short shots' maps to the shots array bounds, 'continuity checklist' maps to continuityAnchors, and 'requested clip length' maps to totalDurationSeconds, but per-shot fields (framing, transition, cameraMovement, durationSeconds) and their constraints remain undocumented.

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 verb phrase 'Turn one to six short shots into a timeline and continuity checklist' names a concrete transformation and its bounded input, which cleanly separates it from build_wan3_video_prompt and diagnose_wan3_video_prompt. It adds a behavioral clause (reporting duration mismatches) but never explicitly names or contrasts a sibling 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?

Usage is only implied: the agent infers this is the planning step for multi-shot sequences, and the phrase about mismatched clip lengths hints at a diagnostic role. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing to the sibling tools, so guidance remains at the implied level.

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