analyze_video

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 no client-side frame extraction is needed and the model used. However, it does not mention output format, error handling, or any destructive behavior, leaving 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 two sentences and to the point. It front-loads the core purpose and model. Minor improvement possible by adding a brief note on output, but overall 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 no output schema and moderate complexity (3 params), the description explains the core workflow but lacks details on the analysis scope, return value, or how it differs from sibling tools like video_qa. Adequate but not complete.

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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds minimal new semantic value. It reinforces the public URL requirement but does not elaborate on question or max_tokens beyond what's in 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 analyzes a video via URL using a specific model (Qwen3.7-Plus), which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like summarize_video or video_qa, which also process 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?

The description only provides a constraint (URL must be publicly reachable) but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like video_qa or analyze_image. No when/not-to-use or alternative suggestions.

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