ask_video

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

Adds significant behavioral details beyond annotations: citations are verified, and if nothing survives it 'says the evidence is insufficient rather than guessing', plus it consumes a quota. The annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-idempotent, so the description adds critical information about evidence verification and fallback behavior.

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?

Two dense sentences that front-load the core purpose and verification logic, then add the cost. Every clause earns its place; no fluff.

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?

The description covers purpose, prerequisites, cost, and fallback behavior, which is quite complete for a query tool. However, it doesn't detail return format or what happens on invalid input, though the lack of an output schema makes some of this less critical.

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 covers analysisId with a description, but question has no description. The tool description does not elaborate on the question parameter beyond being a question. With 50% schema coverage, the description adds minimal value for parameters, though it implies the question is a natural language query.

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 function: 'Ask a question against a finished analysis' and explains the unique behavior of verifying citations against stored evidence. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_analysis or search_transcript.

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?

It specifies that the analysis must be 'finished', implying a prerequisite, and mentions the cost ('Spends one Watch question from the plan'). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_analysis or search_transcript, though the context makes it clear this is for post-analysis Q&A.

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