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. It discloses key behavioral traits: it returns specific metadata (duration, resolution, etc.), requires external dependency (ffprobe), and implies a read-only operation (no destructive hints). However, it doesn't mention error handling, performance characteristics, or rate limits.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by return details, prerequisites, and parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value with zero waste.

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 moderate complexity (single parameter, read-only operation), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, prerequisites, parameter semantics, and return information, leaving no critical gaps.

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 significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explicitly defines the 'path' parameter as 'Absolute path to the video file,' clarifying the expected format and usage, which compensates fully for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 specific action ('Get detailed information about a video file') and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for video files (not images) and returns metadata rather than performing transformations like convert_video or extract_frames.

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 through the requirement of ffprobe installation, suggesting this tool should be used when ffprobe is available. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like get_image_info for images or when not to use it (e.g., for non-video files).

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