List available video components

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the catalog is 'fixed' (immutable/static) and that the tool 'Returns' data, which implies a read-only operation. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond a bare listing, though it doesn't explicitly mention auth or 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb, with no redundant words. Every part contributes value: what it returns, the key fields, and the relationship to render_video.

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 tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it tells the agent exactly what the catalog contains (name, description, default duration, prop schema) and which consumer it serves. An agent can correctly predict the tool's behavior without additional lookup.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema already fully defines the absence of parameters, and the description adds no param-specific detail because none is needed.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('fixed catalog of scene components'), and it names the exact fields included. It also ties the catalog to render_video, making it easy to distinguish from list_assets.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: to see what scene components render_video can compose. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like list_assets, but the reference to render_video provides sufficient context for a zero-parameter catalog query.

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