get_input_deinterlace_mode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral constraint (async inputs only), but does not explain behavior on non-async inputs, return format, or error handling. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 consists of two concise sentences that state the purpose and the key usage constraint without any redundant content. It is front-loaded and highly efficient.

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 is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not mention what the response contains (e.g., mode values) or potential errors for non-async inputs, leaving some gap for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 1 parameter (input_name) with 0% description coverage. The description provides no additional meaning for the parameter, such as accepted formats or how to identify the input, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema's 'Input Name' label.

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 'Get an input's deinterlace mode' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from the sibling set_input_deinterlace_mode and get_input_deinterlace_field_order. The additional 'Async inputs only' further scopes the tool's purpose.

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 explicitly states the tool is for 'Async inputs only (capture cards, etc)', giving clear context on when to use it. However, it does not mention alternatives or what to use for non-async inputs, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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