ask_video

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds valuable behavioral context by noting that qa_only or full pipeline is requird and that the tool works best on focused time ranges. There is no contradiction with the read-only annotation, and the additional constraints are not visible from structured fields alone.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, then organizes guidance into scannable bullets for workflows, single-video/cross-video usage, and follow-ups. Every section earns its place given the tool has 7 parameters and requires routing decisions.

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 an output schema present, the return format need not be explained, and the description covers the main invocation modes, pipeline requirement, and relationship to sibling tools. It is nearly complete, but the unmendtioned rationale parameter and lack of timestamp units are minor completeness gaps for a tool this complex.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the key parameters video_id, start, end, videos, and conversation_id with concrete usage scenarios, which is substantial added meaning beyond the bare schema. However, the optional rationale parameter is never mentioned, and exact timestamp units are unspecified, leaving small gaps.

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 a question-answering action over one or more videos using visual analysis, which separates it from siblings like get_transcript, summarize_video, and search_videos. It also explains single-video vs cross-video scope, so an agent understands what resource this tool operates on and how it differs.

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 explicit workflow guidance: first use search_videos, segment_video, or get_transcript to gather context, then call ask_video. It also specifies parameter patterns for single-video, cross-video, and follow-up scenarios, clearly telling an agent when and how to invoke this tool versus alternatives.

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