split_video

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose two important traits: lossless (no re-encoding) and output file naming convention ('_part_NNN'). However, it does not mention potential edge cases like what happens to the final segment if the video length is not a multiple, whether existing files are overwritten, or any prerequisites. More transparency is expected for a file-writing tool.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core function and lossless nature; the second explains the output naming. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers the primary behavior, lossless splitting, and naming, but lacks information about return values (no output schema exists) and edge-case behaviors like last-segment handling or overwrite rules. Given the complexity of the operation and the absence of annotations, this is a moderate gap.

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 already provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, such as clarifying segment_duration behavior or output_format constraints.

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 ('Split a video'), the resource ('a video'), and the key characteristic ('into equal-duration segments'). It also mentions 'without re-encoding (lossless)' which distinguishes it from other video manipulation tools like trim_video or convert_video.

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 the use case: splitting a video into equal-duration segments. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. There is no reference to sibling tools like trim_video or concat_videos, so guidance is merely implied.

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