runway_upscaleVideo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('upscale') but doesn't cover critical traits such as processing time, rate limits, authentication needs, output format, or potential side effects (e.g., file size changes). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly address the tool's function and parameter usage without any wasted words. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information efficiently, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 (video processing), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the upscaled output looks like (e.g., resolution options, format), potential errors, or integration details, leaving too many unknowns for effective use by an AI agent.

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 description adds some meaning by explaining that 'videoUri' accepts 'a url of a video or a data uri of a video,' which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's basic type. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this is adequate but minimal—it doesn't detail constraints like supported URL formats or video specifications, keeping it at the baseline.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('upscale') and resource ('video'), and specifies the target outcome ('to a higher resolution'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'editVideo' or 'generateVideo' by focusing on resolution enhancement rather than editing or creation. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, keeping it at 4 instead of 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., input video format requirements), when not to use it (e.g., for non-video files), or compare it to sibling tools like 'editVideo' for other modifications. This lack of contextual usage information results in a minimal score.

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