analyze_audio_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a strong job: it names the underlying model (Qwen3.5-Omni), states native audio+video understanding, and discloses how local file paths are handled (base64 data URL) plus a 25MB guardrail. It omits some details like authentication or output structure, but covers important operational behavior well.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first defines what the tool does, the second explains when to use it, and the third details input formats and a size constraint. No filler or repetition, and the most important 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?

Given 4 parameters fully covered in the schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete: it covers the task, model, input flexibility, and a key constraint. It does not explain the output format or potential errors, but for a Q&A-style multimodal tool, the expectations are reasonably clear.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuinely useful semantics beyond the schema: it clarifies that video_url accepts public URLs or local paths, that local files are sent inline as base64, and explicitly notes the 25MB guardrail. This supplements the raw property definitions meaningfully.

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 action ('Watch and listen') and resource ('a video'), and explicitly includes both visuals and audio track, which immediately distinguishes this tool from analyze_video and analyze_audio. The verb+resource combination is precise and independently meaningful.

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?

Gives explicit usage criterion ('Use this when what is said or heard in the video matters'), which clearly implies when this tool should be chosen over visual-only or audio-only siblings. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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