analyze_video

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description reveals important behaviors: caching with forceRefresh, context cost implications of native frames, and fallback to uniform temporal sampling for static videos. This adds transparency that annotations alone don't provide.

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 long but well-organized with bullet points and clear sections. Every sentence adds value; no fluff. Slightly verbose but appropriate given the tool's complexity.

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?

Covers all essential aspects: supported sources, return types, detail levels, options, and environmental defaults. No output schema is present, but the description enumerates the expected fields, making the tool's behavior fully understandable.

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 parameters have descriptive schema text (100% coverage), and the description adds practical guidance for each, e.g., 'maxWidth' explains when to raise it for screen recordings and the context cost. This goes beyond simple attribute names to explain intent and trade-offs.

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's function: analyzing a video URL to extract transcript, key frames, metadata, comments, OCR text, and annotated timeline. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_metadata or get_transcript by being the comprehensive analysis entry point.

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?

Provides detailed usage instructions including supported video sources, detail levels, and customization options via the 'options' parameter. It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools, but as the primary analysis tool, this is rarely necessary. The description also explains when to adjust settings like maxWidth and threshold for specific use cases.

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