get_input_deinterlace_field_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the async-only limitation, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention potential error behavior on non-async inputs, return format, or any side effects, leaving some behavioral unknowns.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the key constraint. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 simplicity of a one-parameter getter and the existence of sibling setter tools, the description provides the essential context: what it gets and its primary limitation. It could be enhanced by mentioning what the returned field order represents, but overall it's sufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds no explanation for the input_name parameter beyond what the schema provides (a generic string). The description doesn't clarify what constitutes a valid input name or how it relates to async inputs, so it fails to compensate for the lack of schema detail.

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 'Get an input's deinterlace field order' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (input's deinterlace field order). It distinguishes well from siblings like set_input_deinterlace_field_order (setter) and get_input_deinterlace_mode (different property).

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 phrase 'Async inputs only' provides a clear usage constraint, telling the agent when this tool is applicable. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the constraint is meaningful and helps select between related tools.

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