get_video_gif

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

Annotations already convey idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds clamping behavior and on-disk caching per parameter set, which are not in annotations. It explains the caching side-effect but doesn't elaborate on potential output format or resource implications.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with the purpose, then a use case and parameter constraints. Every sentence adds value with no redundant content.

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 five parameters and no output schema. The description covers purpose, use case, and parameter constraints, but lacks any mention of the return format (e.g., GIF URL, bytes) and does not clarify the meaning of report_id beyond the schema. Given the absence of an output schema, more detail on the return value would be helpful.

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 compensate. It mentions fps/width/start/end are optional and clamped, but does not explain what each parameter controls (e.g., units, meaning of start/end) or the clamp ranges. This is partial compensation.

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 function: 'Render an animated GIF preview of the video for a report.' This is a specific verb+resource+output combination that distinguishes it from siblings like get_keyframe_image (static image) and render_html_video (HTML video).

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 provides a concrete use case: 'Useful for embedding a short looping preview in an issue, chat, or PR description.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternative 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.