scene_edit_detection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it discloses nothing: no mention of what happens when scene edits are detected (e.g., markers created, information returned), whether it requires an active sequence, or any side effects. The phrase 'expanded operation' is meaningless without elaboration, making the tool's behavior opaque.

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 very short, but its brevity stems from under-specification rather than concise, informative writing. It reads as a fragment that fails to explain the operation, similar to the 'Process' calibration example. The word 'expanded' adds noise without substance, so it does not earn 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?

For a complex operation like scene edit detection, the description is severely inadequate. There is no output schema, no annotations, and no details on what the tool returns, how it integrates with other tools, or how it relates to the sibling 'detect_scene_edits.' The description leaves out essential behavioral context, making it nearly impossible for an agent to use correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so per rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, and none is needed since the schema is empty. However, it could have clarified what the operation implicitly targets (e.g., active sequence), but this omission is not significant enough to drop below the baseline.

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 merely restates the tool name with the phrase 'scene edit detection' and adds the vague qualifier 'expanded operation,' providing no specific verb or resource. It also fails to distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling tool 'detect_scene_edits,' leaving ambiguity about whether these are the same or different 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'detect_scene_edits' or 'detect_silence.' No context, prerequisites, or exclusion conditions are provided, leaving the agent completely in the dark about appropriate usage scenarios.

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