walkthrough

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 it returns a jobId immediately (async), requires polling job_status, and rejects if another job is running. It also notes 'no key, no browser' for auth/environment. This covers key behavioral aspects, though it does not mention whether it overwrites existing files or if it is read-only, but the context suggests a non-destructive export.

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 concise, with three sentences that front-load the primary output and then cover inputs and behavior. It is well-structured and avoids redundancy, though it could be slightly more organized with explicit headings or bullet points for readability.

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 tool has 4 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the purpose, inputs, outputs, async nature, and concurrency constraint. It does not detail the JSON manifest structure, but that is covered by the output schema. It also mentions polling job_status, which is a sibling, and gives enough context for an agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds minimal parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides—it references the output directory default and the language variant, but these are already in the schema. Per the baseline for high coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 exports a walkthrough package from the final video, listing specific output artifacts (index.html, guide.md, PNGs, SRT/VTT, JSON manifest) and the inputs (rendered video + report.json). This is a specific verb+resource with no ambiguity, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on the final export step.

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 gives clear usage context: it requires only the rendered video and report.json, and explicitly states it does not need a key or browser. It also mentions the async behavior and rejection condition. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like frames, stills, or gif, so the 'when to use' is implied but not exhaustive.

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