media_info

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the underlying implementation (ffprobe) and the full content of the report, and the framing as 'learn what you have' / 'check results' makes clear this is a non-mutating inspection step. It stops short of explicitly stating the file is not modified or noting any size/format limitations, which is the only gap for an unannotated tool.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the action and reported fields, then a terse parameter line. No filler, and the workflow guidance follows immediately after the capability statement.

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 one-parameter inspection tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, workflow placement, and the shape of the report, which is everything an agent needs to select and call it correctly. Return-value details are appropriately left to the output schema.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'input: path to an audio/video/image file' tells the agent the parameter is a filesystem path and which media categories are accepted. It adds the meaning the bare string-typed 'input' property lacks, though it offers no detail on path conventions or error behavior for unsupported files.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Summarize a media file with ffprobe') and enumerates exactly what is reported: container, duration, size, bitrate, and per-stream codec/resolution/fps/sample rate/channels. This clearly separates it from the sibling mutation tools (convert, compress, trim, extract_*), which all transform rather than inspect.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing guidance: 'Use it first to learn what you have before compressing or converting, and to check results afterwards.' It names the sibling activities (compress, convert) and the two points in the workflow where this tool applies, so the agent does not have to infer precedence.

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