load_video

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It says 'into the registry,' indicating a side-effect on the registry, but does not explain error behavior, duplicate handling, file existence validation, or whether the operation is reversible. For a mutating operation, this 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and format support, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, output schema present), the description is mostly complete. It specifies the resource type and registry destination, but lacks prerequisites like file existence or path accessibility. However, the output schema likely covers return values, and the schema covers parameter details. Minor gaps prevent a perfect score.

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 provides 100% coverage for both parameters (path and label) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no further parameter-specific meaning beyond listing supported formats. At baseline 3, the schema adequately carries the parameter semantics.

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 action ('Load'), the resource ('a video file'), and the destination ('into the registry'). It lists common video formats, distinguishing it from sibling tools like load_audio and load_image. This is a specific verb+resource+scope.

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 by specifying 'video file' and listing formats, which naturally separates it from load_audio/load_image. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions (e.g., using load_audio for audio files). The context is clear but not explicit.

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