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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and correctly conveys that output is findings with a time and a DSL fix, plus an OK signal when clean. However it never states whether the check is read-only/idempotent, whether it can be slow or costly (analysis of rendered media), or whether the DSL fix is applied or merely suggested.

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?

Front-loaded verb+object, then a compact colon list of check categories, closing with the success condition. No filler sentences and nothing redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description still notes the finding shape and the OK result. The remaining gap is operational context — prerequisites, read-only nature, and cost — which is modest for a single-parameter QA tool.

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 parameter (version_id) and schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. 'A rendered version' loosely ties the argument to a rendered version object, but gives no format hint (ID vs name) beyond what the self-explanatory parameter name already implies.

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 a specific action (QA a rendered version) and enumerates the exact defect classes it looks for, so an agent can tell it apart from 'render' or 'diff'. It does not name siblings, but the scope is unmistakable.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'a rendered version', which suggests post-render inspection, and by 'Returns OK when clean', which hints at a pass/fail gate. No explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites (must a render exist first?), and no alternatives such as 'diff' for version comparison.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses no behavioral traits such as read-only safety, permission requirements, failure modes, or cost. What it does describe (the diff categories) is return content, which is already covered by the output schema, so it adds little behavioral value.

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?

A single compact sentence, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the specific diff dimensions. It is appropriately sized, though the clipped colon-list style is slightly terse.

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?

Complexity is low (two flat string params, output schema present so returns need not be explained), but the total absence of parameter meaning and of any usage routing leaves a real gap for an agent deciding when and how to call it.

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% and the two required parameters (version_a, version_b) are documented nowhere. The description never explains what form a 'version' identifier takes (ID, label, timestamp) or whether ordering matters, leaving the agent unable to populate the call confidently.

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 comparison operation ('what changed between two versions') and enumerates the diff categories it produces (source ranges, option changes, duration delta), so the agent can tell it is a comparison/diff tool rather than an editor or renderer. It does not name or distinguish any sibling explicitly, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus siblings like overview, query, or get_segment, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the version-comparison entry point.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explains the incremental-append behavior when parent_version is set, the escape hatch when the script declares its own base line, and what is returned (version id, segment count, duration, warnings). It omits error behavior and whether existing versions are affected, which is why it is not a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the parent_version nuance and return summary. The parenthetical pointer to server instructions is brief and earns its place, though it does offload essential context elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not enumerate return fields in depth, and it still names the main ones. Combined with the DSL pointer and append semantics, an agent has enough to call this correctly, though the dependency on external server instructions is a small completeness gap.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for parent_version (appended to the parent's script unless a base line exists), but video_id and dsl are left entirely to the schema, with dsl deferred to external server instructions rather than described here.

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 verb and resource: it creates a version from an edit script, which distinguishes it from siblings like render, check, and diff. However, the bare name 'edit' plus the fact that the distinguishing work is done by the DSL reference rather than explicit sibling differentiation keeps this just below a 5.

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 gives an implied usage rule for parent_version (append vs. base-line override) and points to server instructions for the DSL, which is useful. But it never states when to use this tool versus render/check/diff, nor any prerequisite ordering (e.g., whether a render or check is required afterward).

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

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 does disclose input addressing formats and what 'wordtimes' yields, and read-only behavior is implied by 'Detail', but it says nothing about output size, cost, or any constraints on ranges.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and then parameter help; every clause carries information, with no preamble or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description fills the format gaps the bare schema leaves. Remaining gaps are minor (video_id semantics, what an omitted end defaults to), so it is nearly complete for a 4-parameter read tool.

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, and it largely does: start/end are explained as seconds or shot ids with a concrete example ('start="s3"'), and valid fields values are enumerated with wordtimes' meaning given. Only video_id and the default end behavior remain unexplained.

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 a concrete operation ('Detail for one range') on a named resource (a video range/segment), with the start/end addressing scheme spelled out. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like peek or query, so an agent must infer the boundary, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Detail for one range' suggests fetching full detail for exactly one span, and 'for precise cuts' hints at the wordtimes use case. No when-to-use/when-not or alternative tool is named, so the agent still has to guess versus peek/query/overview.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses idempotency semantics (no-op on repeat, force overrides), a cost trade-off (captions=true is slower), and the shape of the result. It does not mention permission requirements, whether the call is long-running/blocking, or failure modes.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler, and the most decision-relevant facts (what it indexes, then the no-op/force rule) are front-loaded before the secondary captions caveat and the return summary.

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 mutation-style tool with no annotations, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: what gets created, when nothing happens, and the cost of an option. Since an output schema exists, restating return fields is optional; the remaining gap is operational context such as expected runtime or permissions.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the two non-obvious flags: force's override-of-idempotency behavior and captions' effect plus slowdown. The required 'path' parameter is left with no format guidance (accepted file types, absolute vs relative), so coverage is incomplete rather than absent.

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 a specific verb (Index) and resource (video file) and enumerates the artifacts produced: shots, transcript, audio/visual events, CLIP embeddings. That scope is specific enough to separate it from siblings like overview, query, or peek, which operate on already-indexed videos.

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?

Clearly establishes the context of use: indexing is the step that populates the index, and re-running it is a no-op unless force=true, which tells the agent when to set that flag. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives or stating prerequisites (e.g., that query/get_segment depend on this having run).

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

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose non-obvious behavior: shot merging/splitting at pauses for the scenes level and offset-based paging for the shots level. It never states this is a read-only operation or what the response contains, leaving a gap for an annotation-free tool.

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?

Two dense sentences with the head concept front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical clauses are information-bearing rather than padding, and it stays short despite covering two modes.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the level/limit/offset behavior is covered. What is missing is any positioning against the eight sibling tools and any read-only confirmation for a tool with zero annotations.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines the two meaningful values of level and explains that limit caps the scenes output while offset pages the shots output. Only video_id and the numeric defaults remain unexplained, but those are self-evident.

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?

Opens with a concrete metaphor ("Table of contents") immediately qualified by what each level returns: scenes merge similar shots and split long ones, shots enumerate s1..sN. An agent understands this lists the video's structural units. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like index_video or peek.

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?

Usage is only implied through the level semantics (scenes = whole-video summary, shots = full enumeration). There is no explicit statement of when to pick this over index_video, peek, or query, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the cost model (image tokens), the return shape (one contact sheet, max 4x4 tiles, each labeled with its timestamp), and defaults via the times parameter. It stops short of stating safety/read-only semantics or what happens when the target is invalid.

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 dense and front-loaded, leading with the action and the cost caveat before parameter semantics. Every sentence carries information, though the parameter glosses run together in a single unbroken block rather than being cleanly separated.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the target, times, size, the cost model, and the return format, which is most of what an agent needs. The unexplained grid parameter and lack of stated failure behavior keep it from being wholly complete.

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, and it largely does: target is explained as video_id or a rendered version id, times as seconds or shot ids with omitted-meaning explanation, and size as the longest side of a tile. Only grid is left entirely unexplained, which is a notable gap for a parameter whose default is true.

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 a specific verb (SEE) and resource (frames), and immediately clarifies the output is a single labeled contact sheet, which separates it from text-oriented siblings like query or get_segment. It does not explicitly name or contrast against sibling tools such as overview or get_segment, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

"costs image tokens; use sparingly" gives a clear caution about when to be cautious with this tool, which is real guidance. However, it names no alternative among the eight siblings (e.g., when to prefer get_segment or overview over peeking), so the agent must infer the selection criteria.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose matching behavior ('exact+fuzzy transcript match', 'CLIP text->shot', 'silence>1.5', 'freeze'), which is genuine behavioral context, but it omits that this is a read-only search, how many results come back (limit is never mentioned), and any pagination or ordering 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?

Dense and front-loaded: the purpose leads, then each kind is defined inline with no filler sentences. It borders on cryptic for the opening clause ('Find time ranges'), which costs a point.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the four kinds are well covered. However, limit/pagination behavior is absent, and for a tool whose output feeds siblings like get_segment, the description leaves the agent without enough to call it confidently beyond the default kind='any'.

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 does explain the semantically complex parameter (kind) in detail, including accepted values and fallback behavior, plus event syntax examples — but text, video_id and especially limit (default 10, undocumented) receive no explanation, so the compensation is only partial.

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 verb+resource pair ('Find time ranges') is terse and never states that the search operates over the video identified by video_id, though the kind definitions (transcript match, CLIP text->shot) let an agent infer it is a content search. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_segment or overview, so the agent must guess where this fits in the workflow.

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?

Usage is implied through the kind semantics: 'any' falls back to event syntax then speech+visual, and the event examples hint at when event matching applies. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing toward siblings such as get_segment for retrieving the actual matched range.

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

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 hints that ffmpeg is invoked and that a file is produced, but says nothing about whether rendering is blocking or long-running, whether it overwrites out_path, or what permissions are required — meaningful gaps for a media-encoding mutation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the enum values, then the return shape — no filler. It is terse to the point that 'version' remains undefined jargon, which slightly undercuts the economy.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be spelled out (and the description repeats them anyway). The real gaps are behavioral: no indication of async vs blocking execution, overwrite behavior, or the meaning of the required version_id, which an agent needs before invoking a render job.

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 schema has no enum for preset, so listing 'original | reel_9x16 | yt_16x9' is genuinely additive information the agent cannot get elsewhere. However, version_id and out_path are left completely unexplained, including what an empty default out_path means.

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 a specific verb ('Render') plus resource ('a version') and names the underlying engine (ffmpeg), so the agent knows this produces a media file rather than metadata. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like edit or check, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to call render versus the sibling tools (edit, check, peek, diff), nor any prerequisite such as needing an existing version_id. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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