rank_clip_candidates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the candidate return shape (start/end, duration, score, title, preview), the cached-transcript dependency, and that no AI CLI is invoked. It leaves minor gaps around cache-miss behavior and explicitly stating that the operation is read-only, but the key operational traits are covered.

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 compact and front-loaded: the trigger and alternative come first, followed by return contents, then next-step tools, then cache/AI behavior. Every sentence adds useful routing or behavioral context without waste.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return fields and the pipeline position. It could be slightly more complete by describing what happens if the transcript is not cached, but the critical context for correct invocation is present.

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%, so the schema already explains both video_path and top_n including the default. The description reinforces that video_path must have a cached transcript, but adds little parameter detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 a specific action and resource: it ranks pre-ranked, sentence-aligned clip candidates from a transcript rather than making the agent read the whole transcript. It clearly distinguishes itself from transcribe_podcast (prerequisite), suggest_clips (submission), and create_clip (rendering).

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?

It explicitly says to call this after transcribe_podcast and instead of reading the whole transcript, giving a clear trigger and exclusion. It also names the next-step alternatives suggest_clips and create_clip, so the agent knows how to proceed after picking candidates.

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