Analyze Video Interlacing

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

The description explicitly claims the operation is 'Read-only', but the annotations set readOnlyHint to false. This is a direct contradiction that makes the safety profile unreliable. The description otherwise adds only the use of FFmpeg idet, which is method detail, not behavioral disclosure such as side effects, permissions, or resource implications.

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 sentences, no filler, and the classification output is front-loaded. Every word earns its place, apart from the problematic 'Read-only' claim which hurts accuracy more than structure.

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 schema covers parameters and an output schema exists for return values, so those do not need elaboration. However, the direct contradiction between 'Read-only' and readOnlyHint=false leaves the tool's behavior profile untrustworthy, and there is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling quality-control or inspection tools. These gaps make the definition incomplete for safe autonomous 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 already provides 100% parameter coverage: media_path is described as an existing local video file, and sample_seconds is fully documented with range and default. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond clarifying that the sample duration applies to decoded frames, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('classify'), a specific resource ('decoded video frames'), the possible classification outputs (progressive, top-field-first, bottom-field-first, mixed, undetermined), and the method ('using FFmpeg idet'). It also frames it as a delivery preflight, which distinguishes it from general analysis or encoding tools. This is a model of purpose clarity.

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 phrase 'Read-only delivery preflight' gives clear context that this is a pre-check, not an edit or export operation. However, it does not name sibling alternatives like analyze_video_qc or inspect_media_streams, nor does it state when this tool should be chosen over them. Clear context but no explicit exclusions.

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