Probe media

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds behavioral value by disclosing synchronous behavior ('answers immediately rather than returning a job id') and enumerating return fields. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise sentences: purpose, return data, and usage guidance. Information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value. 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?

With a single parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, behavior, and usage context sufficiently. The guidance to probe before edits and verify renders completes the tool's role in a workflow.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter, which is described as 'Path to the media file to inspect.' The description does not add new semantic detail beyond the schema, aligning with the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 ('Read') and resource ('media file's technical metadata'), listing exact output fields like container format, duration, codec, etc. It distinguishes from siblings by clarifying it returns immediate results rather than a job id, which separates it from async processing tools.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call it before any edit that depends on the source dimensions or duration, and call it again on an output to verify a render.' It also states it answers immediately, implying use when sync results are needed. Lacks when-not-to-use or alternative tool names, so not a 5.

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