ilovevideoeditor_local_analyze

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool analyzes and returns metrics/issues, implying a read-only operation, and adds specific categories of issues. However, it does not mention whether a local preview must be active, whether it has side effects, or any prerequisites.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource and immediately provides concrete examples of the output. No wasted words.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what it analyzes, where it analyzes, and what it returns. It could be slightly more explicit about prerequisites, but overall it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 input schema covers 100% of the single parameter ('time') with a clear description. The tool description does not add extra meaning about the parameter, but the schema itself is sufficient, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Analyze'), identifies the resource ('generated VideoJSON layout in the local preview'), and specifies the output ('structured metrics and issues' with concrete examples). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like local_preview or local_capture.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you need to analyze a layout for overflow, overlap, font fallback, etc. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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