Transcode a local picture or video

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, and it does disclose determinism, refusal to overwrite output, and avoidance of interactive menus. However, it does not clarify whether the original file is modified or a new file is created, what the output path is, or error handling. While useful, this is insufficient for a mutation-like tool without 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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes two key behavioral constraints. It is efficient and wastes no words, though it could add parameter details without sacrificing conciseness.

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 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It does not specify how output location is determined, what the resolution presets mean, error conditions, or any prerequisites. It is below the minimum viable level for a transcode tool that an agent must 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the tool description does not explain the meaning of 'format' or 'resolution' beyond their enum values. The input parameter is implied by 'absolute local media path', but the relationship between format and resolution (e.g., which resolutions apply to video vs. image) and what 'high' vs. 'low' mean is unclear. This leaves an agent guessing.

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 action ('transcode') and the resource ('one absolute local media path'), and it distinguishes itself from all siblings, none of which perform transcoding. The mention of 'using Omarchy' and the explicit refusals add specificity, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use it (transcoding media files) and there are no apparent alternative tools for this task among the siblings, so it doesn't need exclusion guidance. However, it does not provide explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' conditions, which would have earned a 5.

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