analyze_ad

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the heavy processing pipeline: 'download if a URL, sample frames at configured fps, tile them into labeled contact sheets, extract audio, transcribe.' It also describes the return format. No contradictions or hidden behaviors are evident.

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 relatively long but each sentence adds value. It front-loads the main purpose and then details the process and parameters. Minor redundancy (e.g., 'Runs the local prep pipeline' followed by specifics) 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 annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the tool's operation, parameter options, return format, and even hints at output structure. The agent has all needed information to invoke and process the result.

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 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It does so thoroughly: source (local path or multiple URL types), language (auto or ISO code), with_audio (boolean to skip transcription). Defaults are included, making the semantics clear.

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's purpose: 'Give Claude EYES + EARS on a short-form video ad.' It specifies the verb (analyze), resource (short-form video ad), and scope (by returning images and transcript). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like transcribe, which only provides transcription.

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 analyzing short-form video ads and tells the agent to 'Look at the images and read the transcript to analyze the ad.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like transcribe or when not to use it (e.g., for long-form content).

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