wecandeo_video_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that the tool returns 'camelCase fields' and 'AI summaries when available', which adds some transparency about output format and conditional availability. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, any permission requirements, or side effects. For a tool that retrieves detailed info, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose (getting detailed information) and includes a key detail about return format in the second sentence. Every phrase earns its place.

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 no output schema, so the description should compensate by explaining what data is returned. It mentions 'camelCase fields' and 'AI summaries', which helps but is vague. The two required parameters are well-documented in the schema. For a tool that provides 'detailed information', the description lacks specifics about the types of details (e.g., metadata, URLs, statistics). It is minimally adequate.

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 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description ('Original video access key (Level 1)' and 'Distribution package ID') does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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's purpose: 'Get detailed information of a video.' It specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed information of a video', making the intent obvious. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like wecandeo_video_encoding_status or wecandeo_video_list_package, so it loses some points for differentiation.

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. With many sibling tools for uploading, encoding, listing, etc., the agent receives no context for decision-making. The description does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions.

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