Detect Source Scene Changes

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

The description asserts 'Read-only' while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, a direct contradiction about whether the tool mutates state. Because the description misstates the safety profile that annotations carry, it cannot be credited with behavioral disclosure.

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 with zero padding; the core action is front-loaded and the scoping clause follows immediately. Nothing needs trimming.

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 purpose, mechanism, and operating scope, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. However, it omits any differentiation from the several scene/edit detection siblings and makes a safety claim that conflicts with the annotations, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent deciding between tools.

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%: threshold range/default, media_path requirement, maximum_events cap, and minimum_interval_seconds default are all documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond that, 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+resource (detect probable visual cuts) and the mechanism (FFmpeg scene scores) on a local source file. It is clear about what it operates on, but it does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as detect_scene_edits or scene_edit_detection.

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 clause 'source-relative; it does not cut a Premiere timeline' implies the intended operating context (a source file rather than a timeline), which is useful negative guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use rule versus the similar scene/edit-detection siblings, leaving the choice to inference.

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