Run deterministic quality control on a rendered video file, comparing its actual duration to the expected duration to verify the output meets specifications.
Run deterministic QC on a rendered file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | Yes | ||
| expected_duration | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'deterministic QC', which is opaque. It does not disclose what checks are performed, whether the file is modified, what 'deterministic' implies, or potential side effects. This is inadequate for an agent to predict tool behavior.
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 extremely short (one sentence), which is concise, but it is under-specified. It front-loads the verb and noun, but the brevity sacrifices essential meaning. More sentences are needed to express purpose and usage clearly.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (unknown) and the absence of output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot determine what inputs must satisfy, what the output is, or what side effects occur. The sibling context suggests a video editing pipeline, but nothing here clarifies the role of QC.
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 0%, and the description adds no parameter information. With two parameters ('file' and 'expected_duration'), the agent knows the schema only as raw types (string, number) and lacks any semantic meaning for 'expected_duration' or the format of 'file'. The description must compensate but does not.
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 'Run deterministic QC on a rendered file' has a verb ('run') and a resource ('rendered file'), but 'deterministic QC' is vague, and it does not distinguish from siblings like 'read', 'render', or 'vlm_review'. The resource type is clear, but the specific purpose is underspecified.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings like 'render' and 'vlm_review', no conditions or exclusions are given. An agent cannot infer the intended context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.