Analyze video

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently reveals the keyframe-extraction mechanism and source types (local/remote). It does not mention output format or potential limitations (e.g., loss of temporal context between frames), which prevents a top score, but the core behavior is well outlined.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences, no fluff, with the primary purpose front-loaded and supporting usage guidance in the second sentence. Every word 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 clarify the return value. While the description explains the mechanism (extracting keyframes) and gives usage examples, it does not state what the analysis produces (e.g., text summary, labeled frames, etc.), leaving a notable gap for an AI agent selecting and invoking the tool.

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 detailed descriptions for all three parameters (source, prompt, max_frames), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 function: 'Analyze a local or remote video by extracting evenly spaced keyframes.' This specific verb+resource+method distinguishes it from typical image tools. It also lists concrete use cases like 'screen recordings, UI flows, demos, and event summaries,' further clarifying its video-centric 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 phrase 'Use this for screen recordings, UI flows, demos, and event summaries' offers clear, context-rich guidance on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it with the sibling tool 'analyze_image,' so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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