fablecut_analyze_reference

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that the path is copied into media automatically, threshold has adaptive defaults, and registerMusic extracts and registers the music track on A1. No contradictions or hidden side effects are apparent.

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 moderately long but well-structured: purpose first, then outputs, then recipe, then cross-reference. Each sentence adds value, but minor redundancy (e.g., 'Remake recipe' repeats some info). Still efficient for the amount of detail.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return values (shot boundaries, per-shot audio energy, beats, BPM, loudness curve, drop, extracted music) and provides a complete recipe for using the blueprint. It also references documentation for further details. No gaps identified.

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 100%, and the description adds value: for 'path' it clarifies absolute vs. media/ src; for 'threshold' it explains adaptive default values (0.30→0.20→0.12) and tuning guidance; for 'registerMusic' it describes extraction and registration. This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 the tool analyzes a reference video into an EDIT BLUEPRINT for rebuilding with different footage over same music. It lists specific outputs (shot boundaries, per-shot audio energy, beats, BPM, loudness curve, drop, extracted music) and distinguishes from siblings via cross-reference to documentation.

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 explicitly says when to use (analyze reference for remake) and provides a step-by-step remake recipe. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context and sibling tool names imply its specific role. Cross-reference to docs enhances guidance.

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