Chat with Video

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions analyzing video content but lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., video indexing), permissions, or response format. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 concise with two sentences, no redundancy, and front-loads the primary action. However, it could benefit from a clearer structure or additional key behavioral points.

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?

Given the complexity of video analysis and multiple parameters, the description is too minimal. It lacks information on return values, processing time, or any constraints (e.g., video length). No output schema increases the burden, which is not met.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining session_id enables multi-turn conversations, but does not clarify video_nos format or unique_id purpose beyond what the schema provides.

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 tool's purpose: asking questions about specific videos using natural language, analyzing content, and providing answers. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like caption_video or get_transcription by focusing on interactive Q&A.

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 explains that users can ask questions and continue multi-turn conversations via session_id, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_videos or chat_personal.

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