Reverse video

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key behavioral trait: 'Buffers the whole clip in memory', and also notes that audio is reversed alongside video. This goes beyond the basic purpose and helps the agent anticipate resource use and suitability. It does not mention other side effects (e.g., metadata loss), but the disclosed behaviors are the most critical.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second provides a critical caveat with actionable advice. Every word earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: purpose, audio behavior, memory constraint, and usage recommendation. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when to use it and what to expect, though it could optionally note output behavior or lack of metadata preservation for absolute completeness.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters (input_path and output_path) with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies. It does mention trimming first, which indirectly relates to input length, but that's more of a usage guideline than a parameter clarification.

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 states a specific action ('Play the video (and audio) backwards') with a clear resource (the video) and explicitly notes it affects audio as well. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like change_speed or trim_video, which address different transformations.

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 usage context: 'best for short clips — trim first for anything over a minute or two' implies when to use and recommends a preceding action (trimming). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'when not to use' beyond the length caveat, but the guidance is actionable and specific.

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