analyze_moment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint (all safe). The description adds behavioral context by explaining the combination of frame extraction, transcript filtering, and OCR, and lists supported video sources. However, it does not disclose potential limitations like network issues, rate limits, or the heavy processing nature, which would complete the 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 concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement, bulleted list of capabilities, usage guidance with example, and a list of supported formats. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool (multi-modal analysis) and the absence of an output schema, the description does a good job explaining what the output contains (frames, transcript, OCR, timeline) but stops short of describing the exact response structure. It adequately covers inputs and supported sources, making it sufficient for an agent to decide when to use it.

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?

All 5 parameters are documented in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds significant value by providing an example call showing default values, clarifying the count default and max/min, and explaining the ocrLanguage default and combination format. This goes beyond what the schema provides.

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 performs a 'deep-dive analysis of a specific time range in a video' combining multiple capabilities (burst frames, transcript, OCR, timeline). It distinguishes itself from siblings like analyze_video (full video), get_frame_at (single frame), and get_transcript (transcript only) by focusing on a time range with multi-modal output.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when you need to understand exactly what happens between two timestamps' and gives examples of what the output includes. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context signals list sibling tools that imply other use cases.

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