Analyze Video Qc

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

The description asserts 'Read-only: it does not contact Premiere or modify the file,' but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, directly contradicting the claim that the operation does not modify. This is a genuine inconsistency the agent cannot resolve from the definition, so it must be flagged even though the FFmpeg/no-Premiere detail is otherwise informative.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is analyzed and followed by the side-effect profile; no filler or repetition of the title. Every clause earns its place.

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 explained, and the description covers the analysis target, mechanism, and side-effect intent for a 3-parameter tool. Its completeness is undercut only by the read-only claim conflicting with the annotations, which leaves the true side-effect profile ambiguous.

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% and all three parameters (media_path, minimum_black_seconds, minimum_freeze_seconds) are documented in-schema, including defaults. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Analyze), a specific resource (a local video delivery), and a specific target (sustained black and frozen sections). It differentiates itself from Premiere-bound siblings by declaring it works on a local file with FFmpeg and never contacts Premiere, so an agent can tell it apart from tools like verify_delivery_file or analyze_video_interlacing.

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 'local video delivery' and 'does not contact Premiere' imply this is for offline/standalone QC of an already-rendered file, which is useful framing. However, it names no alternative sibling (e.g., verify_delivery_conformance, verify_delivery_file) and states no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use condition, leaving routing to inference.

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