show_video

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one real behavioral trait — an empty subtitle code plays with no subtitles — but says nothing about whether playback replaces the current item, whether the call blocks, what happens on an invalid path, or what authorization/media state is required.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the edge-case rule. Minor waste: "using the the video path" repeats the parameter name and contains a duplicated word, but nothing substantive is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and only two parameters are involved. Still, for a playback-starting tool with zero annotations, the definition omits the state-changing effects (does it interrupt current playback?) and path validation expectations, leaving an agent with gaps before invoking it.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds genuine meaning for subtitle_language_code (empty string means no subtitles), but leaves video_path entirely unexplained — no hint whether it is an absolute filesystem path, a URI, or a name resolvable via get_available_videos.

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?

"Show the video" names a specific verb and resource, and the mention of video path and subtitle language code makes the intent unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as enqueue_video or play_playlist_item, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone why it would choose this over queuing.

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 only guidance given is about the empty subtitle code, which is parameter behavior rather than a when-to-use rule. There is no statement of when to call this versus enqueue_video (queue for later) or play_playlist_item, and no prerequisites such as the video needing to exist on disk.

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