Get Video Timeline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context about the merged chronological view coming from a previously-processed video and the dependency on a prior understanding call.

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 composed of three efficient sentences with no filler. The core return semantics are stated first, followed by the usage context and the required prerequisite.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema present, the description gives the key return semantics, the prerequisite, and the relationship to sibling tools. An agent has enough information to decide when to invoke it and what it will receive.

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 schema already has 100% coverage for the single required video_id parameter, including the prerequisite that it was returned by understand_video or transcribe_video. The description adds little beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 the exact resource and behavior: a full chronological, merged timeline of a previously-understood video, interleaving spoken segments and visual observations. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by positioning it as the underlying structure that search_video and find_moment query.

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?

Explicitly says to use this tool when the agent needs the complete picture rather than a single answer, and connects it to the search siblings. It also states the prerequisite that video_id must come from a prior understand_video or transcribe_video call.

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