media-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a read-only operation ('Get') and specifies what information is returned, but lacks details on error handling, permissions needed for file access, performance characteristics, or whether it modifies the file. This is adequate but has gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by specific return details and parameter explanation in a clear, bullet-like structure. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, returns, and parameter semantics, though it could benefit from more behavioral context like error cases or file access requirements to be fully comprehensive.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'path' by specifying it as an 'Absolute path to the image file,' which clarifies the expected input format beyond the schema's basic string type. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensates well, though it doesn't detail path validation or supported file formats.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about an image file'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_video_info' which handles video files. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other read-only siblings like 'create_thumbnail' or 'extract_frames' that also retrieve image data.

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 implies usage by specifying it returns image metadata, suggesting it should be used when such information is needed. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_video_info' for videos or 'strip_metadata' for removing metadata, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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