Get video/audio metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explicitly states 'Streams only the header, not the whole file,' which is a key efficiency trait. It also mentions using ffprobe. Additional behavioral details (e.g., error handling, size limits) are absent, but the core safety and performance implication is conveyed.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose and typical metadata fields, the second gives input conventions. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded with the most critical information.

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 simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, method, behavioral trait, and input conventions. It also lists typical output fields, which compensates for the lack of an output schema. Minor gaps: no explicit mention of return format structure or error conditions, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the relationship between path and link ('Provide path within a folder link or a direct file link'), and implies that raw includes full ffprobe JSON. This goes beyond the schema's basic 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 that the tool probes technical metadata using ffprobe, and enumerates typical fields (duration, resolution, codecs, bitrate, fps). It distinguishes itself from siblings like mega_read_file and mega_transcribe by focusing on metadata extraction, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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 provides input usage instructions (path within folder link or direct link) but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as mega_transcribe for audio transcription or mega_read_file for content reading. The agent receives no decision support for tool selection.

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