capcut_get_media_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure, and it does convey that this is a non-destructive inspection operation backed by ffprobe. However, it says nothing about failure behavior (missing file, unsupported format, corrupt media), the return shape, or the external ffprobe dependency beyond naming it.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb, names the resource, and lists concrete output fields. There is no filler, redundancy, or self-evident repetition of the tool name.

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 read-only inspection tool this is mostly adequate: purpose, method, and key returned parameters are covered. But with no output schema and no annotations, the description should address error cases and the set of supported file types (it omits images, which the schema includes), and it leaves the agent guessing about the response structure.

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 100% and already documents file_path as an absolute path to video, image, or audio file. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema states, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies. Note a minor inconsistency: the description mentions only video/audio while the schema includes images.

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 ('Inspects') and identifies a precise resource (technical parameters of video/audio files) while enumerating the actual fields returned (duration, width, height, fps, codec). It is clearly distinguished from all siblings, none of which perform media inspection; an agent can separate it from capcut_get_project or capcut_list_projects without opening any schema.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., verifying the file exists or that ffprobe is installed), and no exclusions. Usage context such as 'inspect media before adding it to a project' is only implied by the tool's nature, never stated.

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