compare_video_frames

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose key behaviors such as whether it returns a textual description, how frames are sampled, or what 'analyze' produces. Vague.

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?

Single sentence with parenthetical examples. No wasted words, but could be more structured (e.g., bullet points or explicit sections). Efficient overall.

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?

No output schema, so description should explain return value (e.g., text summary or frame diff). It does not. Among 7 siblings, it lacks context for selection. Incomplete for a comparative tool.

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 parameters are well-documented in schema. Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema; it restates the tool's purpose rather than clarifying parameter usage.

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 verb 'analyze' and resource 'changes and progression across a video' with examples (before/after, movement, progression). It distinguishes from siblings like 'analyze_video' and 'summarize_video' by focusing on temporal comparison.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Examples are provided but no exclusion criteria or context for sibling tools like 'analyze_video' or 'video_qa'.

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