Video settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description adds only the field inventory (resolutions, frame rate); it says nothing about units, defaults, or whether settings reflect saved project state.

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 short noun phrase with no filler. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though the fragmentary phrasing is slightly less clear than a full sentence would be.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return, and it does list the main setting categories, which is roughly adequate for a simple read. It omits units, value ranges, and return shape, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 schema declares zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline of 4 applies for a parameterless getter.

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 enumerates the specific settings returned (canvas/base resolution, output resolution, frame rate), which lets an agent distinguish it from sibling get_input_settings or get_outputs. It lacks an explicit verb like 'Returns', but the resource content 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 use this tool versus get_input_settings, get_outputs, or get_overview, and no prerequisite or context guidance. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and the field list.

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