Analyze Video Qc

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

The description explicitly claims 'Read-only: it does not contact Premiere or modify the file,' but the annotations set readOnlyHint=false. This is a direct contradiction between the described behavior and the structured metadata, so the agent cannot reliably trust the tool's side-effect profile.

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 and every sentence earns its place: the first states the operation and target, the second clarifies the safety profile. There is no filler, title repetition, or schema redundancy.

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 three-parameter tool with a full input schema and an output schema, the prose covers the main non-schema context: local file, FFmpeg, black/freeze detection, and no Premiere modification. The annotation contradiction slightly undermines overall completeness, but the prose alone is nearly sufficient 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description's reference to a 'local video' aligns with media_path but adds no additional meaning, and the black/freeze thresholds are fully covered by the input schema.

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 names a specific action ('Analyze'), a specific input ('local video delivery'), specific targets ('sustained black and frozen sections'), and the method ('FFmpeg'). This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from sibling analyzers such as analyze_video_interlacing or inspect_media_streams.

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 gives useful context that this is for local file QC and does not require Premiere, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for related QC checks, so usage guidance is implied rather than fully explicit.

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