analyze_video

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 discloses that the tool returns a new report id and list of outputs (summary/fix-prompt URIs, resolved action, suggested actions). It describes supported video formats. It doesn't mention side effects, but for a read-like analysis tool, this is adequate. More could be said about whether the tool modifies anything or requires specific permissions.

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 well-structured with a clear opening line, a paragraph of context, then a list of arguments with explanations. It is concise enough (around 150 words) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Minor redundancy in the 'Args:' section could be tightened, but overall it's efficient.

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 7 parameters (1 required), no annotations, and an output schema existing, the description covers the key aspects: input formats, parameter meanings, and return value structure (report id, URIs, action, suggestions). It does not mention potential errors or prerequisites (e.g., ffmpeg installation), but for typical usage within a coding agent environment, this is sufficient.

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 has 0% description coverage (no enum definitions, and parameters are generic anyOf string), but the description provides detailed explanations for each parameter: path (file format), repo_root (grounding references), intent (user request), skill (summary style from list_skills), system_prompt (overrides skill), action (action mode from list_actions), action_prompt (overrides action). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states it analyzes any video and returns a report id, using strong verbs like 'analyze' and 'return'. It lists varied video types (bug recording, feature demo, etc.) and explains the output (structured Context Bundle for coding agents). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_keyframe_image or get_timeline, which deal with specific parts of the analysis.

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 explains when to use the tool: to analyze any video for a coding agent. It implicitly suggests when not to use it by describing the full analysis scope, but it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or conditions where other tools (e.g., get_error_evidence) are better suited.

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