resolve_analyze_intellisearch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that analysis is native, faces are opt-in, and it does not query a search index. These are meaningful behavioral traits. It could mention whether the operation is asynchronous and how to check results, but the current information is substantial given the absence of annotations.

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 concise, with four short sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add prerequisite and behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value, and there is no fluff or redundancy. It is efficient and well-structured.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers essential purpose and prerequisites but omits expected follow-up actions (e.g., how to know when analysis is done, whether it returns a result). It also doesn't clarify parameter interplay or potential side effects. While not incomplete to a dangerous degree, it leaves gaps that an agent might need to infer.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It directly explains 'identify_faces' as opt-in and indirectly references 'better_mode' through the 'Faster/Better Extras' prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly map each parameter to its role (e.g., what better_mode does, how clip_name vs folder_path interact). The description provides hints but leaves key parameter semantics partially ambiguous.

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 verb and resource: 'Analyze a clip or folder for IntelliSearch.' It distinguishes the tool from siblings like resolve_reset_intellisearch by emphasizing it starts native analysis and does not query a search index. The purpose is unambiguous and easily separates it from related operations.

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: prerequisites ('Needs Faster/Better Extras'), opt-in behavior for face identification, and a clear distinction from search queries. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as when to use reset_intellisearch or other analysis tools. The guidance is helpful but not fully explicit.

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