Loop video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions 'Fast — no re-encoding', which is useful, but omits other aspects such as handling audio, output file creation, or potential limitations. The description adds some context but does not fully explain the behavior beyond the basic operation.

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 a single, efficient sentence that immediately states the core function and a key performance characteristic. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant information.

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 simple tool with well-documented parameters, the description is fairly complete. It covers the two operational modes and hints at the output quality. However, it does not mention potential edge cases like mutual exclusivity of 'plays' and 'target_duration' or default behaviors, leaving a small 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema by mentioning 'a number of times' and 'target duration', which map to the 'plays' and 'target_duration' parameters, but these are already described in the schema. No additional parameter semantics are provided.

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 purpose: repeating a video back-to-back either a fixed number of times or until a target duration is reached. It uses specific verbs ('Repeat') and specifies the resource ('video'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like concat_videos or trim_video.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: whenever you need to loop a video. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the 'back-to-back' phrasing implies concatenation of the same clip, which differentiates it from general concatenation. No unnecessary alternative guidance is given.

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