analyze_videos

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

Even though annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, the description adds substantial behavioral context: per-item error isolation, cache/sidecar reuse, bounded responses with no inline frame images, and conditional field arrays based on options.fields. None of this contradicts the annotations and it meaningfully exceeds what the structured fields alone convey.

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 well-structured with a clear lead sentence, a short pipeline/caching paragraph, a concise bulleted return-format section, and a final bounded-response note. Every sentence contributes information, and the formatting helps an agent scan it quickly.

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 batch tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it explains the per-item success/failure shape, partial failure behavior, caching and sidecar persistence, response-size controls, and how it relates to analyze_video. An agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantic nuance by explaining that full transcript/OCR/timeline arrays are only returned when options.fields is set, otherwise counts are returned, and that frame images are never inlined. This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions without repeating every field.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: "Batch-analyze many videos in one call," and clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling analyze_video by emphasizing batch processing, per-item results, and a bounded response. It also states it runs the same pipeline as analyze_video, making the relationship explicit.

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 it is "Designed for processing a corpus of local files," recommends pairing with MCP_WRITE_SIDECARS=1, and tells the agent to "Use analyze_video on an individual source when you need the images or full data inline." This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with a named alternative.

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