stg_detect_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions the output and a cost-like note ('Uses 1 check'), but does not disclose read-only status, permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether the operation consumes credits in a specific way.

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?

Very short and front-loads the output description, but the first clause is a fragment and 'Uses 1 check' is unclear. It avoids bloat, yet some sentences are too cryptic to fully earn their 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?

The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, but for a single-input tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is missing key context: parameter format, invocation guidance, and behavioral constraints.

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?

There is one required parameter, video_path, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention the parameter at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema's type and title, such as whether the path is a local file or URL.

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 the output (frames and times of impacts, flashes and cuts) and the use case (placing sound effects in an editor), which is specific enough to distinguish it from unrelated siblings like stg_account and stg_pricing. The trailing 'Uses 1 check' is vague, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

Gives an intended application ('for placing sound effects in an editor') but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools. It does not say what kind of video input is required or whether other tools should be used first.

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