analyze_energy

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions defaulting to current UI video and suggestions, which is useful. However, it fails to describe return values, whether the operation is synchronous or asynchronous, any side effects, or whether it only reads data. These gaps are significant for an analysis tool with no annotation coverage.

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 concise sentences with no redundancy. The core purpose is stated first, followed by essential default behavior. Every word adds value, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

With only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and defaults. However, it omits any mention of the return format, whether the operation could be long-running (relevant given job_status exists), or what the results look like. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent, but overall it is adequate for a basic analysis tool.

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 100%—both parameters have descriptions. The description adds some context by reiterating defaults and the purpose, but it does not enrich parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema already documents each parameter thoroughly, a baseline of 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Analyze audio energy levels for a video or specific segments.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of finding high-energy moments clarifies its utility. No sibling tool performs the same function, so it stands alone without ambiguity.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Useful for finding high-energy moments' and explains default behavior ('Defaults to the current UI video and suggestions if not specified'). However, it does not explicitly advise when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives, though no direct alternative exists among the siblings. The implied use case is sufficient for most agents.

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