Analisar vídeo para scrub

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds value by disclosing what the inspection actually reports (static head/tail segments, hard cuts, instant change concentration) with model-specific context (Kling vs Seedance behavior). No return format or pagination detail is given, but the output set is well conveyed.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and tightly packed into two sentences with no filler. The parenthetical asides about Kling/Seedance are dense but they earn their place by explaining why the static-segment metric matters.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the tool returns, and it does so by listing the analysis dimensions. For a read-only, two-parameter inspection tool this is nearly complete; only the response shape/first required param are untouched.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the description need not restate the video path or projeto folder. It adds no syntax or path-format detail beyond what the schema already provides; baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Inspeciona um clipe') and enumerates exactly what is measured: duração, resolução, fps, trechos parados, cortes secos, concentração de mudança. This distinguishes it from extraction siblings like extrair_frames or folha_de_contato, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear usage context: 'Inspeciona um clipe antes de fatiar' and 'Use para escolher o melhor take/modelo.' The trigger is explicit, but no exclusions or named alternatives tell the agent when not to use it.

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