Read Video Scopes

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only', but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, which directly contradicts the description. This is an annotation contradiction and forces a score of 1 regardless of the otherwise useful behavioral context about being a sampled analytical proxy.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The core operation and data outputs are front-loaded, and the caveat about Premiere's rendered scopes is placed at the end without bloating the definition.

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 input source, frame bound, read-only claim, and analytical proxy caveat. With an output schema present and full parameter schema coverage, the description is largely complete for invoking the tool, though the annotation contradiction remains a notable 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource (waveform percentiles, RGB parade percentiles, saturation, near-black/near-white RGB occupancy) and the specific source (one bounded decoded local-media frame). It does not explicitly differentiate from a sibling tool, but the data-specific wording makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 usage context through 'from one bounded decoded local-media frame' and the caveat that this is a sampled analytical proxy, not Premiere's rendered scopes. However, it does not name alternatives or provide explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools.

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