video_doctor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: it does not load an ASR model or capture media, and ASR unavailability does not disable pure visual tools, which tells an agent how partial failures are handled.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by two useful caveats. The first sentence is dense with slash-separated technical terms but remains readable, and no sentence is filler.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description covers both what is checked and the key operational caveats (no model load, no capture, graceful ASR degradation). It could go further by stating expected output or preflight ordering, but most of what an agent needs to invoke it correctly is present.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description makes no parameter claims and none are needed, avoiding misleading input guidance.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Check', and enumerates the exact targets: Node, FFmpeg, FFprobe, URL resolver, and ASR configuration/dependencies/model identity/capabilities. This clearly marks it as a diagnostics/environment-probe tool distinct from media-processing siblings, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with a sibling like video_help.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent would infer this is the environment-preflight/diagnostic call. However, the description never states when to call it (e.g., before video_start), nor does it route the agent to or away from any alternative tool. The exclusions about not loading ASR or capturing help scope it but are not explicit when-to-use guidance.

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