video.caption

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions 'local' execution and 'complete' pipeline, hinting at on-device processing and multi-step behavior, but it omits important behavioral traits like file creation, overwriting, or required resources. The overwrite and create_preview_output parameters imply side effects that are not disclosed.

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 a single, clean sentence that is easy to read and front-loads the verb. However, it is under-specified given the tool's complexity; the brevity sacrifices essential information, so it is not effective conciseness.

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 tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the one-sentence description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the pipeline stages, expected outputs, or relationship to sibling tools, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 9 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description mentions only 'a video,' providing no explanation for style, device, threads, language, overwrite, config_path, preview_width, or create_preview_output. This is far below the coverage threshold and the description does not compensate.

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 identifies the tool as running a 'complete local caption pipeline' for a video, which conveys a high-level purpose and implies a composite workflow. However, 'caption pipeline' is vague and doesn't explicitly state what steps are involved or what outputs are produced, making it hard to distinguish from sibling tools like video.transcribe or subtitle.clean on first read.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as video.transcribe or video.render. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context in which the complete pipeline should be chosen over individual steps.

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