gif

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses async behavior and concurrency rejection, but omits side effects such as file creation/overwrite and error behavior beyond the rejection.

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 compact, two sentences, and contains only essential information with no fluff or repetition.

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?

The description gives the overall async workflow and a concurrency constraint, but it does not cover parameter meaning, defaults, output details, or failure modes, so the agent may struggle to invoke it correctly.

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?

Only one of four parameters has a schema description, and the tool description does not explain fps, out, or width. The role of dir may be inferred from 'output/final-demo.mp4', but most parameters remain ambiguous.

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: converting output/final-demo.mp4 to a README-ready GIF. It also clarifies the asynchronous return and concurrency restriction, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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?

It provides procedural guidance (returns jobId, poll job_status, rejects if another job is running), but does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over sibling rendering/recording tools or when not to use it.

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