analyze_videos

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds no contradiction. Beyond annotations, it discloses caching behavior, concurrency limits, per-item error handling, and response bounding (no inline images, conditional full arrays). This adds rich behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and is well-structured. It is slightly lengthy but every sentence adds necessary detail for an agent to use the tool correctly. No redundant information is present.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return format (JSON summary plus entries with ok/error and field details). It covers key behavioral aspects like caching, concurrency, and response size. For a batch tool of moderate complexity, the description is complete and actionable.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters. The description adds value by explaining that options apply to every source, concurrency is CPU-heavy, and that output fields are conditional on the 'fields' parameter. It also mentions the batch nature, which clarifies the sources parameter.

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 it is for batch-analyzing many videos in one call, with a concurrency limit and per-item results. It differentiates from the sibling analyze_video by noting that frame images are not inlined and full data is conditional on fields, indicating when to use which 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?

The description explicitly says 'Designed for processing a corpus of local files' and advises pairing with MCP_WRITE_SIDECARS=1 for persistence. It also states 'Use analyze_video on an individual source when you need the images or full data inline,' providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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