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

No annotations are provided, so the description must alone disclose behavioral traits. It explains that upload requires file_path and returns asset_id, delete requires asset_id, and list returns id, name, type, url. However, it omits details such as file size limits, supported formats, authorization requirements, or error behaviors. This leaves gaps for an AI agent.

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 a single paragraph but well-structured: purpose, use cases, action details, and a note. It is relatively concise and front-loads key information. However, it could be slightly more compact by separating actions into a list for readability.

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 has three actions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers basic inputs and outputs for each action. However, it lacks details on error handling, authorization boundaries, or file size/type constraints. An AI agent might need additional context for robust usage, but the description is sufficient for straightforward calls.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter: action is an enum with three values, file_path is required for upload, asset_id is required for delete. It also clarifies the return of upload (asset_id) and list output fields. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare types and titles, though it could detail file_path format or constraints.

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: 'Upload and manage media files'. It lists specific use cases (backgrounds, Avatar IV photos, custom audio) and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'avatars' and 'videos' by focusing on generic media file management. The actions (list, upload, delete) are explicitly described with their functions.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each action: list to retrieve assets, upload with required file_path, delete with required asset_id. It also includes a contextual note for Avatar IV usage. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or scenarios where this tool should not be used.

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 bears full burden. It discloses that 'list' returns all avatars with id, name, gender and that 'get' requires avatar_id. However, it lacks details on return format, error handling, auth requirements, or side effects. The description is helpful but not comprehensive.

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 relatively concise, fitting key information in a few sentences. It front-loads the purpose and required note, then lists actions. However, the structure could be improved with bullet points for clarity, and some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating REQUIRED).

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?

The description explains actions and parameter requirements but does not cover return values for all actions (e.g., 'get' says 'get details' but not what details). No output schema exists, so this gap is notable. Error handling and edge cases are also unaddressed, leaving the tool somewhat incomplete for complex use.

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 add meaning. It effectively explains how each action uses parameters (e.g., 'list' uses no extra params, 'get' uses avatar_id, 'list_groups' uses include_public, 'list_in_group' requires group_id). This significantly augments 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 is for getting avatars (AI personas) for video generation. It distinguishes from sibling tools (assets, folders, etc.) by focusing on avatars. The actions are enumerated with specific purposes, providing a clear verb+resource description.

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 explicit guidance on workflow: start with 'list', then use 'get' for details. It notes required parameters for each action and includes tips like 'include_public=true for public'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with alternatives among siblings.

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 full burden. It discloses actions and their required parameters (e.g., trash requires folder_id, restore recovers from trash). However, it does not mention side effects, permanence of trash, permissions needed, or rate limits, leaving behavioral gaps.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose, one optional note, and a bulleted-like list of actions with required fields. No redundancy, every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers actions and parameter requirements well. However, it omits return values (e.g., what 'list' returns, whether create returns the new folder). This lack slightly reduces completeness for an agent expecting to use the output.

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 input schema marks folder_id and name as optional, but the description clarifies conditional requirements: 'create' requires name, 'rename' requires both folder_id and name, etc. This adds critical meaning beyond schema, which has 0% coverage. Without this, agents would not know which parameters are required per action.

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: 'Organize videos and assets into folders.' It then enumerates five specific actions (list, create, rename, trash, restore) with their requirements, making the resource and verbs explicit. This differentiates it from sibling tools by focusing on folder management.

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 includes an 'OPTIONAL' note about using folders for organization, implying when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it with alternatives among sibling tools (e.g., assets, videos). Usage guidance is present but lacks exclusion 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?

With no annotations, the description outlines actions and parameters, including the tip about test=True saving credits. However, it doesn't discuss side effects, idempotency, or error handling. Behavioral transparency is adequate but could be improved.

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?

Description is fairly concise but uses ALL CAPS for emphasis, reducing readability. It front-loads purpose and workflow, but the mixed formatting detracts from structure. Could be cleaner with proper formatting.

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?

Covers the workflow, actions, and parameter usage adequately for a 6-parameter tool without output schema. Missing error handling and edge cases, but sufficient for basic usage. Given no output schema, the description does a good job overall.

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 description compensates by explaining parameters: action as required, template_id context, variables as optional dict, title, test, caption booleans. Adds meaning beyond schema by specifying when template_id is required and test=True purpose.

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: using pre-made video templates. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'videos' by noting it's easier with pre-configured layouts. The three actions (list, get, generate) are explicitly listed, making the purpose 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?

Provides a clear workflow: list templates, get variables, generate video, check status. Includes tip to use test=True for preview. Though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the contrast with 'videos' tool provides some alternative context.

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 provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond listing actions. It does not state that actions are read-only, describe authentication needs, or mention any side effects.

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 short sentences: first states purpose, second provides a recommendation and lists actions. No wasted words, information is front-loaded.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the purpose and outputs of each action. Could optionally mention the format of credits return value.

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 input schema has one enum parameter with 0% coverage in description, but the description adds meaning by explaining what each action retrieves (user profile fields, remaining credits), compensating for the lack of schema documentation.

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?

Description clearly states 'Manage HeyGen user account' and lists two specific actions ('info' and 'credits') with their outputs, making the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like 'assets' or '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?

Provides explicit recommendation to call 'credits' before generating videos, giving context for using the credits action. However, it does not specify when not to use the tool or alternative tools.

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 discloses important behavioral traits: videos take 1-10+ minutes, polling is required, and for 'generate', video_inputs_json must be a JSON array even for single scenes. This gives agents a clear expectation of the tool's 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?

The description is structured with a summary, workflow, and action details. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. While slightly lengthy, every part adds value, and the formatting (capitalised actions, bullet-like details) aids readability.

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?

The description covers the core actions and workflow well but leaves several parameters unexplained (e.g., token, audio_url, custom_motion_prompt). Given 13 parameters and no output schema, more detail on optional parameters and return values would improve completeness.

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 extensive meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each action's required parameters, the structure of video_inputs_json, and the purpose of fields like image_key, script, and voice_id. This is critical for correct invocation.

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: 'Generate AI avatar videos and check their status.' It lists specific actions (list, generate, generate_iv, status) and provides a workflow, making its function distinct from sibling tools like avatars or voices.

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 a clear workflow (get avatar_id, get voice_id, call generate, poll status) and specifies required parameters for each action. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives to the actions.

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 provided, so the description bears the burden. It transparently states the action is 'list' and the returned fields (id, name, language, gender). It also advises on language matching, adding behavioral insight beyond the schema.

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 extremely concise: two sentences and a tip, all front-loaded with essential information. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simple list tool without an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and what it returns. It mentions the broader context of needing a voice_id for video generation, though it omits potential edge cases or error conditions.

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% (no parameter descriptions in schema), but the description fully explains the 'action' parameter's purpose and the sole allowed value 'list', adding meaning that the schema lacks.

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 'Get available voices for video generation' with a specific verb and resource. It explains the action parameter and what is returned, distinguishing it from sibling tools like assets or avatars.

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 implies when to use the tool (to obtain a voice_id for video generation) and provides a tip on matching voice language to script language, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to other tools.

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