get_video_evidence_asset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It only states the tool 'finds saved visual evidence and returns a local frame/clip reference', but does not disclose behaviors like what happens if no evidence is found, whether it modifies state, or if it requires prior saving. The return type is vague ('local reference'). This under-disclosure is a significant gap.

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 a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It contains no extraneous information and is efficiently front-loaded. Every word contributes to understanding the core function.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, 2 required, no schema descriptions or annotations, and an output schema not referenced), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the 'request' parameter, the difference between frame and clip asset types, or the meaning of preferred timestamps. The output is only briefly mentioned as a 'local frame/clip reference'. The description fails to adequately prepare the agent for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. The description does not explain any parameter's purpose or format. While parameter names (e.g., video_id_or_url, request) are somewhat intuitive, the description fails to clarify how they relate to the tool's action or what values are expected. This leaves the agent guessing.

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 it finds saved visual evidence and returns a local frame/clip reference. The verb 'find' and resource 'saved visual evidence' make the purpose specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_video_clip or get_video_frame, which might also retrieve media assets, but the 'evidence' qualifier provides some distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_video_clip, get_video_frame, or find_video_moments. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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