Search moments

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description is consistent and adds context by explaining the query operation and listing searchable fields. No contradictions, and the description enriches the safety profile with a specific example and scope.

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 sentences plus an example, all front-loaded with the verb. Every word is necessary, no fluff. Efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key usage.

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 and no output schema, the description explains the query capability and provides an example. It does not detail return format or pagination, but it is sufficient for understanding what the tool does. Annotations cover read-only behavior.

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 71%, which is high enough for a baseline of 3. The description provides an overview of filterable attributes but does not detail every parameter (e.g., exposure and stability are missing from description). The example adds some semantics but not full compensation.

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 uses the specific verb 'Query' and specifies the resource 'footage graph for segments'. It lists multiple filter criteria (subject, camera movement, quality, aesthetic score, free text) and provides an example, clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like skycut_analyze_footage or skycut_propose_cut.

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 usage for searching moments by various criteria, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. No guidance on when not to use it or mention of sibling tools.

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