tool_analyze_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does contribute real constraints: supported container formats (mp4, mov, avi, webm, mkv) and a 20MB inline size limit. However it says nothing about what is returned (text analysis?), latency, whether the file leaves the machine, or auth requirements for the model backend.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the hard constraints; no filler. Slightly terse in that it never states an outcome, but every sentence 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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description is the only place a caller could learn what comes back, and it is silent on the return shape. Combined with zero usage guidance against 18 sibling tools, an agent has enough to invoke it but not enough to predict or route confidently.

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 coverage is reported at 0% at the top level, so the description must compensate; it does add the format and size semantics for video_path but says nothing about prompt, model, or model_tier selection. The nested $defs do carry descriptions for those params, which partially offsets the gap, keeping this at minimum-viable rather than deficient.

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 and resource ("Analyze a local video file"), naming the engine (Gemini Vision), which distinguishes it from sibling image/video tools at a glance. It does not explicitly contrast itself with tool_analyze_image or tool_generate_video, so it falls short of the 5-level sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to pick this over tool_analyze_image for still frames or over video-generation siblings, and no prerequisites. The description only describes capability, leaving selection entirely to inference.

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